Judge to Tell Jury that Both Apple & Samsung Destroyed Evidence

| News

Judge Lucy Koh

As the U.S. patent infringement trial between mobile device giants Apple and Samsung nears its end, the presiding judge late Sunday overturned a lower judge’s ruling in favor of Apple and significantly leveled the playing field between the two companies prior to jury deliberations, FOSS Patents reported Monday.. According to Judge Lucy Koh’s orders, the jury will be instructed that both Apple and Samsung destroyed relevant email evidence prior to the trial.

The issue began in late July, when Apple won an adverse inference jury instruction from a magistrate judge against Samsung for failing to preserve emails on its corporate servers after it became clear that litigation was “reasonably foreseeable.” An adverse inference instruction is when a judge instructs the jury prior to deliberations that they can (or must in some cases) conclude that one party destroyed or failed to produce relevant evidence because it was damaging to their case. Such an instruction can be damaging to not only one party’s case on the merits, but also to that party’s credibility in the jury’s eyes.

Shortly after Apple won its instruction, Samsung brought a “me too” motion asking for the court to issue the same instruction to the jury against Apple (i.e., that Apple also destroyed evidence unfavorable to its case). That motion was denied by the magistrate judge last week, leaving Samsung in a precarious position.

Samsung responded by appealing the magistrate judge’s decision, arguing to Judge Koh that either both sides should be subject to the instruction or neither should.

In a surprising move, Judge Koh ruled on Samsung’s motion late Sunday, entering an order to instruct the jury that both Samsung and Apple destroyed evidence. The instructions will read:

Samsung Electronics Company has failed to preserve evidence for Apple’s use in this litigation after Samsung Electronics Company’s duty to preserve arose. Whether this fact is important to you in reaching a verdict in this case is for you to decide.

Apple has failed to preserve evidence for Samsung’s use in this litigation after Apple’s duty to preserve arose. Whether this fact is important to you in reaching a verdict in this case is for you to decide.

While neither company wants the jury to infer that it destroyed evidence damaging to its case, the application of the instruction against both companies at least levels the playing field. As a result, Judge Koh’s Sunday order is a significant victory for Samsung and a setback for Apple.

Due to the fact that the two companies have failed to settle any of their claims, Judge Koh’s decision may only serve as grounds for the eventual appeals by both companies. Samsung will be able to argue that the order should never have been issued against it in the first place, while Apple will argue that Samsung’s spoliation of evidence was far more severe than its own and, therefore, the judge should have issued a much harsher instruction against the Korean company.

Judge Koh’s decision will face vigorous appeal from Apple’s attorneys today, and we will continue to provide updates as the situation evolves.

Sign Up for the Newsletter

Join the TMO Express Daily Newsletter to get the latest Mac headlines in your e-mail every weekday.

6 Comments Leave Your Own

b9bot

I think then the Judge should then let the Jury know the amount of evidence destroyed by both parties. At least that will give the Jury a fair look as to who was more irresponsible in this case. And we know Samsung is the loser of this argument.

p2p

Really Fanboy? If the evidence were destroyed then how can one possibly know how much was destroyed. What is it you know exactly, did you have access to both companies email databases and are now secretely holding on to the missing evidence?

Wow…

Bosco (Brad Hutchings)

I thought Florian was thoroughly discredited by Oracle’s post-trail disclosure in Oracle v. Google. How do you know that Apple lawyers aren’t paying him to manufacture analysis for writers at Mac sites to parrot?

stilep

The article doesn’t mention if there is any reason to believe either party destroyed evidence though.  Why did the first judge rule that apple didnt, and this judge rule that they did?  What changed?

RonMacGuy

I thought Florian was thoroughly discredited by Oracle?s post-trail disclosure in Oracle v. Google. How do you know that Apple lawyers aren?t paying him to manufacture analysis for writers at Mac sites to parrot?

Funny, I thought Bosco was thoroughly discredited by his Apple-hater-predictions-gone-wrong history on TMO.  Huh.

jfbiii

I believe there was also the part where Florian disclosed Oracle was paying him…when they started paying him. He never mentioned it again, of course, which is not so great. But given Bosco’s history…I believe Florian is a more-qualified commenter astro-turfing than Brad.

But the real point is that we’re not talking about Schrodinger’s Facts here. Koh’s orders don’t change based on who observes and reports them.

Log-in to comment