2193
This document was uploaded by user and they confirmed that they have the permission to share it. If you are author or own the copyright of this book, please report to us by using this DMCA report form. Report DMCA
Overview
Download & View 2193 as PDF for free.
More details
- Words: 1,751
- Pages: 5
Case 5:05-cv-00334-RMW
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Document 2193
Filed 09/15/2008
Page 1 of 5
GREGORY P. STONE (#78329) KEITH R. D. HAMILTON (#252115) MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP 355 South Grand Avenue, 35th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071-1560 Telephone: (213) 683-9100; Facsimile: (213) 687-3702 E-mail: [email protected]; [email protected] BURTON A. GROSS (#166285) CAROLYN HOECKER LUEDTKE (#207976) MIRIAM KIM (#238230) MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP 560 Mission Street, 27th Floor San Francisco, CA 94105-2907 Telephone: (415) 512-4000; Facsimile: (415) 512-4077 E-mail: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
10 Attorneys for Plaintiff RAMBUS INC. 11 12
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SAN JOSE DIVISION
13 RAMBUS INC.,
CASE NO.: C 05-00334 RMW
14 Plaintiff, 15 v. 16 HYNIX SEMICONDUCTOR INC., et al.,
RAMBUS INC.’S OPPOSITION TO SAMSUNG’S MOTION REGARDING ADMISSIBILITY OF CERTAIN DOCUMENTS FOR SEPTEMBER 22 TRIAL
17 Defendants 18 19
Date: Time: Location: Judge:
September 16, 2008 3:30 p.m. Courtroom 6 Hon. Ronald M. Whyte
20 21
RAMBUS INC., Plaintiff,
22 23 24 25
CASE NO.: C 05-02298 RMW
v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., et al., Defendants
26 27 28 RAMBUS INC.’S OPPOSITION TO SAMSUNG’S MOTION REGARDING ADMISSIBILITY OF CERTAIN DOCUMENTS FOR SEPTEMBER 22 TRIAL; CASE NOS. 05-00334, 05-02298
Case 5:05-cv-00334-RMW
1
I.
2
Document 2193
Filed 09/15/2008
Page 2 of 5
INTRODUCTION Samsung asks this Court to “exercise its discretion” by setting aside the foundational
3
requirements for admissibility and admitting exhibits 4244, 4245, 4246, and 4260 into evidence at
4
the September 22, 2008 trial (“September 2008 Trial”) without a sponsoring witness. Samsung’s
5
Motion Re: Admissibility of Certain Documents for September 22 Trial, Docket No. 1117, C 05-
6
02298-RMW, 1 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 12, 2008) (“Mot.”). Samsung’s motion is contrary to the Rules
7
of Evidence, case law, and this Court’s prior evidentiary rulings. This Court should therefore
8
deny Samsung’s motion and require Samsung to call a fact witness who can testify regarding each
9
of the four documents in dispute if it wishes to admit them into evidence.
10
II.
11
BACKGROUND At the September 11, 2008 pretrial conference, Samsung’s counsel first asked Rambus’s
12
counsel whether Rambus would stipulate to the admission of trial exhibits 4244, 4245, and 4246.
13
These three documents appear to be emails sent between David Mooring and persons at ATI and
14
nVIDIA in 2004. Rambus explained that these documents should not come into evidence without
15
a sponsoring witness to establish foundation and context and to explain what the documents are.
16
Thereafter, on Friday night, September 12, 2008, Samsung filed its motion to admit exhibits 4244
17
through 4246, and for the first time sought to admit exhibit 4260. Exhibit 4260 appears to be two
18
pages of handwritten notes with “Samsung Meeting 2/2/05” written at the top.
19
On September 15, 2008, Rambus sought to compromise with Samsung and stated that it
20
would agree to admit the emails marked as exhibits 4244 through 4246 for the September 2008
21
Trial if Samsung would agree to admit two documents related to Samsung’s license negotiations
22
with ATI and nVIDIA (that are the subject of exhibits 4244 through 4246) 1 and two documents
23
related to Samsung’s license agreement with InterDigital. 2 As of the filing of this opposition,
24
Samsung had not agreed to this compromise.
25 26 27 28
1
These two documents provide some of the necessary context for exhibits 4244 through 4246. Rambus excluded exhibit 4260 from its offer to compromise because, as Rambus explained, handwritten notes with no identified author are particularly ill-suited for admission without a witness. 2
-1RAMBUS INC.’S OPPOSITION TO SAMSUNG’S MOTION REGARDING ADMISSIBILITY OF CERTAIN DOCUMENTS FOR SEPTEMBER 22 TRIAL; CASE NOS. 05-00334, 05-02298
Case 5:05-cv-00334-RMW
1
III.
Document 2193
Filed 09/15/2008
Page 3 of 5
ARGUMENT
2
Samsung’s motion is procedurally untenable. Samsung argues that this Court should
3
admit the four exhibits at issue for no other reason than to “avoid the need to call sponsoring
4
witnesses who will otherwise be unneeded by either party.” Mot. at 1. However, Samsung cites
5
no rule or case law permitting these exhibits to be automatically admitted over Rambus’s
6
objections. Indeed, Samsung cannot authenticate these documents without testimony from a
7
knowledgeable fact witness. 3 See Fed. R. Evid. 901(a) (requiring “evidence sufficient to support
8
a finding that the matter in question is what its proponent claims.”). Nor may Samsung evade the
9
requirements of Federal Rules 901 or 802 by treating the authenticity of these exhibits as an
10
acknowledged fact. 4 See, e.g. Petroleum Sales, Inc. v. Valero Refining Co., No. C 05-3526 SBA,
11
2006 WL 3708062, at *12 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 14, 2006) (sustaining objections to emails that were
12
not properly authenticated); Sharper Image Corp. v. Target Corp., 425 F.Supp. 2d 1056 (N.D.
13
Cal. 2006) (same). In the absence of testimony to support a finding that these documents are
14
what Samsung claims, or to support their admission under an exception to the hearsay rule, it
15
would be unhelpful to the Court -- and prejudicial to Rambus -- to admit these exhibits.
16
Samsung’s position is also unsupported by the case law cited in its own motion. See Mot.
17
at 1-2. Indeed, not one of the cases cited by Samsung involved the admission of documents
18
where no testimony or other evidence was presented to identify the document or place it in
19
context. See United States v. Pang, 362 F.3d 1187, 1193 (9th Cir. 2004) (admitting invoices only
20
after government authenticated them by showing “that the invoices were identical to other
21
invoices that were received into evidence, that they were matched to carbonless copies of the
22 3
23 24 25 26 27 28
For example, Samsung states that trial exhibit 4260 consists of “Rambus’s handwritten notes from the 2-2-05 Samsung Meeting,” but does not identify the individual who recorded these notes. Mot. at 3. Samsung also offers no evidence to support its conclusory statement that “[t]here can be no real question regarding the authenticity of [trial exhibits 4244, 4245, and 4246].” Id. at 2. 4
Samsung’s responses to Rambus’s hearsay objections are equally devoid of factual support. Samsung claims that these exhibits are admissible to establish that “certain statements were made during the February 5, 2005 meeting, or in emails sent by Mr. Mooring in 2004,” but these arguments are undermined by Samsung’s failure to authenticate these documents. Mot. at 3. In the absence of any foundation, these documents are also not admissible as party admissions or Rambus business records. -2RAMBUS INC.’S OPPOSITION TO SAMSUNG’S MOTION REGARDING ADMISSIBILITY OF CERTAIN DOCUMENTS FOR SEPTEMBER 22 TRIAL; CASE NOS. 05-00334, 05-02298
Case 5:05-cv-00334-RMW
Document 2193
Filed 09/15/2008
Page 4 of 5
1
same invoices in evidence, and that the numbers were in sequence with the numbers of other
2
invoices that were in evidence”); Beech Aircraft Corp. v. United States, 51 F.3d 834, 842 (9th
3
Cir. 1995) (excluding documents offered by plaintiffs “at the last minute, without the benefit of
4
authenticating testimony and without giving the government the opportunity to elicit testimony to
5
place the worksheets in context”); United States v. Silverthorne, 430 F.2d 675, 678 (9th Cir.
6
1970) (no error to admit credit report bearing defendant’s handwritten initials following
7
testimony from government witness). In the absence of such evidence, Samsung’s motion
8
effectively asks the Court to admit documents blindly and without any factual corroboration
9
whatsoever. Because there is no legal basis or support for padding the record with
10
unauthenticated hearsay, Samsung’s motion should be denied.
11
The necessity of offering these exhibits through a fact witness is also supported by
12
common sense. Without a witness, exhibits such as exhibit 4260 are not intrinsically trustworthy
13
(or relevant). Only a witness can identify the author of these notes and reliably connect this
14
exhibit to a meeting between Samsung and Rambus. And only a witness can explain whether
15
particular notes refer to what was said at the meeting, and by whom, or whether they refer to
16
thoughts of the author or earlier or later comments made by an attendee, or someone who was not
17
in attendance. Similarly, exhibits 4244 through 4246 require a witness to explain the context in
18
which Mr. Mooring’s comments were made. Without a witness, Samsung’s own self-serving
19
assertions regarding the content and relevance of these exhibits cannot be tested through cross-
20
examination or relied upon as evidence. 5 Accordingly, before Samsung can use or argue from
21
these documents, it must call a witness to authenticate them.
22
Finally, Samsung’s request is contrary to the procedure that this Court required in the
23
January 29, 2008 coordinated trial. There, the Court repeatedly held that the parties must offer a
24
fact witness to testify about each document before it could be admitted. See Trial Tr. at 3447
25
(Court noting that “many of these [presentation] pages don’t mean anything … absent somebody
26
explaining what was, for example, presented”); 3451 (Micron’s counsel acknowledging “[i]t’s our
27
5
28
Indeed, if these documents are admitted without a witness to lay a proper foundation, it simply shifts to Rambus the burden of calling such a witness. -3RAMBUS INC.’S OPPOSITION TO SAMSUNG’S MOTION REGARDING ADMISSIBILITY OF CERTAIN DOCUMENTS FOR SEPTEMBER 22 TRIAL; CASE NOS. 05-00334, 05-02298
Case 5:05-cv-00334-RMW
Document 2193
Filed 09/15/2008
Page 5 of 5
1
burden to have a witness discuss those pages [that are offered into evidence]”); 4551 (Micron’s
2
counsel stating that, “the Court has ruled many times before that such documents should not be
3
admitted unless there's testimony about something in the document”). The parties abided by
4
these requirements in the coordinated trial and there is no reason this standard should not continue
5
for the September 2008 Trial.
6
IV.
7
CONCLUSION Samsung’s motion to admit exhibits 4244, 4245, 4246, or 4260 should be denied and if
8
Samsung wishes to admit these documents, Samsung should be required to call a witness to
9
testify about them.
10 11
DATED: September 15, 2008
MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP
12 13 14
By:
/s/ Carolyn Hoecker Luedtke Carolyn Hoecker Luedtke
15 16
Attorneys for Plaintiff RAMBUS INC.
17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -4RAMBUS INC.’S OPPOSITION TO SAMSUNG’S MOTION REGARDING ADMISSIBILITY OF CERTAIN DOCUMENTS FOR SEPTEMBER 22 TRIAL; CASE NOS. 05-00334, 05-02298
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Document 2193
Filed 09/15/2008
Page 1 of 5
GREGORY P. STONE (#78329) KEITH R. D. HAMILTON (#252115) MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP 355 South Grand Avenue, 35th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071-1560 Telephone: (213) 683-9100; Facsimile: (213) 687-3702 E-mail: [email protected]; [email protected] BURTON A. GROSS (#166285) CAROLYN HOECKER LUEDTKE (#207976) MIRIAM KIM (#238230) MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP 560 Mission Street, 27th Floor San Francisco, CA 94105-2907 Telephone: (415) 512-4000; Facsimile: (415) 512-4077 E-mail: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
10 Attorneys for Plaintiff RAMBUS INC. 11 12
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SAN JOSE DIVISION
13 RAMBUS INC.,
CASE NO.: C 05-00334 RMW
14 Plaintiff, 15 v. 16 HYNIX SEMICONDUCTOR INC., et al.,
RAMBUS INC.’S OPPOSITION TO SAMSUNG’S MOTION REGARDING ADMISSIBILITY OF CERTAIN DOCUMENTS FOR SEPTEMBER 22 TRIAL
17 Defendants 18 19
Date: Time: Location: Judge:
September 16, 2008 3:30 p.m. Courtroom 6 Hon. Ronald M. Whyte
20 21
RAMBUS INC., Plaintiff,
22 23 24 25
CASE NO.: C 05-02298 RMW
v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., et al., Defendants
26 27 28 RAMBUS INC.’S OPPOSITION TO SAMSUNG’S MOTION REGARDING ADMISSIBILITY OF CERTAIN DOCUMENTS FOR SEPTEMBER 22 TRIAL; CASE NOS. 05-00334, 05-02298
Case 5:05-cv-00334-RMW
1
I.
2
Document 2193
Filed 09/15/2008
Page 2 of 5
INTRODUCTION Samsung asks this Court to “exercise its discretion” by setting aside the foundational
3
requirements for admissibility and admitting exhibits 4244, 4245, 4246, and 4260 into evidence at
4
the September 22, 2008 trial (“September 2008 Trial”) without a sponsoring witness. Samsung’s
5
Motion Re: Admissibility of Certain Documents for September 22 Trial, Docket No. 1117, C 05-
6
02298-RMW, 1 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 12, 2008) (“Mot.”). Samsung’s motion is contrary to the Rules
7
of Evidence, case law, and this Court’s prior evidentiary rulings. This Court should therefore
8
deny Samsung’s motion and require Samsung to call a fact witness who can testify regarding each
9
of the four documents in dispute if it wishes to admit them into evidence.
10
II.
11
BACKGROUND At the September 11, 2008 pretrial conference, Samsung’s counsel first asked Rambus’s
12
counsel whether Rambus would stipulate to the admission of trial exhibits 4244, 4245, and 4246.
13
These three documents appear to be emails sent between David Mooring and persons at ATI and
14
nVIDIA in 2004. Rambus explained that these documents should not come into evidence without
15
a sponsoring witness to establish foundation and context and to explain what the documents are.
16
Thereafter, on Friday night, September 12, 2008, Samsung filed its motion to admit exhibits 4244
17
through 4246, and for the first time sought to admit exhibit 4260. Exhibit 4260 appears to be two
18
pages of handwritten notes with “Samsung Meeting 2/2/05” written at the top.
19
On September 15, 2008, Rambus sought to compromise with Samsung and stated that it
20
would agree to admit the emails marked as exhibits 4244 through 4246 for the September 2008
21
Trial if Samsung would agree to admit two documents related to Samsung’s license negotiations
22
with ATI and nVIDIA (that are the subject of exhibits 4244 through 4246) 1 and two documents
23
related to Samsung’s license agreement with InterDigital. 2 As of the filing of this opposition,
24
Samsung had not agreed to this compromise.
25 26 27 28
1
These two documents provide some of the necessary context for exhibits 4244 through 4246. Rambus excluded exhibit 4260 from its offer to compromise because, as Rambus explained, handwritten notes with no identified author are particularly ill-suited for admission without a witness. 2
-1RAMBUS INC.’S OPPOSITION TO SAMSUNG’S MOTION REGARDING ADMISSIBILITY OF CERTAIN DOCUMENTS FOR SEPTEMBER 22 TRIAL; CASE NOS. 05-00334, 05-02298
Case 5:05-cv-00334-RMW
1
III.
Document 2193
Filed 09/15/2008
Page 3 of 5
ARGUMENT
2
Samsung’s motion is procedurally untenable. Samsung argues that this Court should
3
admit the four exhibits at issue for no other reason than to “avoid the need to call sponsoring
4
witnesses who will otherwise be unneeded by either party.” Mot. at 1. However, Samsung cites
5
no rule or case law permitting these exhibits to be automatically admitted over Rambus’s
6
objections. Indeed, Samsung cannot authenticate these documents without testimony from a
7
knowledgeable fact witness. 3 See Fed. R. Evid. 901(a) (requiring “evidence sufficient to support
8
a finding that the matter in question is what its proponent claims.”). Nor may Samsung evade the
9
requirements of Federal Rules 901 or 802 by treating the authenticity of these exhibits as an
10
acknowledged fact. 4 See, e.g. Petroleum Sales, Inc. v. Valero Refining Co., No. C 05-3526 SBA,
11
2006 WL 3708062, at *12 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 14, 2006) (sustaining objections to emails that were
12
not properly authenticated); Sharper Image Corp. v. Target Corp., 425 F.Supp. 2d 1056 (N.D.
13
Cal. 2006) (same). In the absence of testimony to support a finding that these documents are
14
what Samsung claims, or to support their admission under an exception to the hearsay rule, it
15
would be unhelpful to the Court -- and prejudicial to Rambus -- to admit these exhibits.
16
Samsung’s position is also unsupported by the case law cited in its own motion. See Mot.
17
at 1-2. Indeed, not one of the cases cited by Samsung involved the admission of documents
18
where no testimony or other evidence was presented to identify the document or place it in
19
context. See United States v. Pang, 362 F.3d 1187, 1193 (9th Cir. 2004) (admitting invoices only
20
after government authenticated them by showing “that the invoices were identical to other
21
invoices that were received into evidence, that they were matched to carbonless copies of the
22 3
23 24 25 26 27 28
For example, Samsung states that trial exhibit 4260 consists of “Rambus’s handwritten notes from the 2-2-05 Samsung Meeting,” but does not identify the individual who recorded these notes. Mot. at 3. Samsung also offers no evidence to support its conclusory statement that “[t]here can be no real question regarding the authenticity of [trial exhibits 4244, 4245, and 4246].” Id. at 2. 4
Samsung’s responses to Rambus’s hearsay objections are equally devoid of factual support. Samsung claims that these exhibits are admissible to establish that “certain statements were made during the February 5, 2005 meeting, or in emails sent by Mr. Mooring in 2004,” but these arguments are undermined by Samsung’s failure to authenticate these documents. Mot. at 3. In the absence of any foundation, these documents are also not admissible as party admissions or Rambus business records. -2RAMBUS INC.’S OPPOSITION TO SAMSUNG’S MOTION REGARDING ADMISSIBILITY OF CERTAIN DOCUMENTS FOR SEPTEMBER 22 TRIAL; CASE NOS. 05-00334, 05-02298
Case 5:05-cv-00334-RMW
Document 2193
Filed 09/15/2008
Page 4 of 5
1
same invoices in evidence, and that the numbers were in sequence with the numbers of other
2
invoices that were in evidence”); Beech Aircraft Corp. v. United States, 51 F.3d 834, 842 (9th
3
Cir. 1995) (excluding documents offered by plaintiffs “at the last minute, without the benefit of
4
authenticating testimony and without giving the government the opportunity to elicit testimony to
5
place the worksheets in context”); United States v. Silverthorne, 430 F.2d 675, 678 (9th Cir.
6
1970) (no error to admit credit report bearing defendant’s handwritten initials following
7
testimony from government witness). In the absence of such evidence, Samsung’s motion
8
effectively asks the Court to admit documents blindly and without any factual corroboration
9
whatsoever. Because there is no legal basis or support for padding the record with
10
unauthenticated hearsay, Samsung’s motion should be denied.
11
The necessity of offering these exhibits through a fact witness is also supported by
12
common sense. Without a witness, exhibits such as exhibit 4260 are not intrinsically trustworthy
13
(or relevant). Only a witness can identify the author of these notes and reliably connect this
14
exhibit to a meeting between Samsung and Rambus. And only a witness can explain whether
15
particular notes refer to what was said at the meeting, and by whom, or whether they refer to
16
thoughts of the author or earlier or later comments made by an attendee, or someone who was not
17
in attendance. Similarly, exhibits 4244 through 4246 require a witness to explain the context in
18
which Mr. Mooring’s comments were made. Without a witness, Samsung’s own self-serving
19
assertions regarding the content and relevance of these exhibits cannot be tested through cross-
20
examination or relied upon as evidence. 5 Accordingly, before Samsung can use or argue from
21
these documents, it must call a witness to authenticate them.
22
Finally, Samsung’s request is contrary to the procedure that this Court required in the
23
January 29, 2008 coordinated trial. There, the Court repeatedly held that the parties must offer a
24
fact witness to testify about each document before it could be admitted. See Trial Tr. at 3447
25
(Court noting that “many of these [presentation] pages don’t mean anything … absent somebody
26
explaining what was, for example, presented”); 3451 (Micron’s counsel acknowledging “[i]t’s our
27
5
28
Indeed, if these documents are admitted without a witness to lay a proper foundation, it simply shifts to Rambus the burden of calling such a witness. -3RAMBUS INC.’S OPPOSITION TO SAMSUNG’S MOTION REGARDING ADMISSIBILITY OF CERTAIN DOCUMENTS FOR SEPTEMBER 22 TRIAL; CASE NOS. 05-00334, 05-02298
Case 5:05-cv-00334-RMW
Document 2193
Filed 09/15/2008
Page 5 of 5
1
burden to have a witness discuss those pages [that are offered into evidence]”); 4551 (Micron’s
2
counsel stating that, “the Court has ruled many times before that such documents should not be
3
admitted unless there's testimony about something in the document”). The parties abided by
4
these requirements in the coordinated trial and there is no reason this standard should not continue
5
for the September 2008 Trial.
6
IV.
7
CONCLUSION Samsung’s motion to admit exhibits 4244, 4245, 4246, or 4260 should be denied and if
8
Samsung wishes to admit these documents, Samsung should be required to call a witness to
9
testify about them.
10 11
DATED: September 15, 2008
MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP
12 13 14
By:
/s/ Carolyn Hoecker Luedtke Carolyn Hoecker Luedtke
15 16
Attorneys for Plaintiff RAMBUS INC.
17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -4RAMBUS INC.’S OPPOSITION TO SAMSUNG’S MOTION REGARDING ADMISSIBILITY OF CERTAIN DOCUMENTS FOR SEPTEMBER 22 TRIAL; CASE NOS. 05-00334, 05-02298
