In a recent court filing, Samsung Lawyer John Quinn defended the move to release previously nixed evidence to media outlets, saying the move was both “ethical” and “lawful.” Quinn who’s a high-powered attorney and managing partner at Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP, was dressed down yesterday by Judge Lucy Koh for emails Samsung sent to reporters that contained exhibits blocked from consideration by the jury in the company’s trial against Apple. Judge Koh was the one presiding the case and after she was made aware of the “leak” by Apple attorneys late Tuesday, she ordered Samsung to enter a brief detailing of who authorized the email and why. As a response, Quinn denies any wrongdoing and claims the action was in response to reporters’ requests for information.
The court pushed for an open trial, denying on numerous occasions requests to seal deemed-sensitive documents by both Apple and Samsung. Quinn noted the following in this declaration:
Far from violating any order, Samsung's transmission to the public of public information disclosed in pretrial filings is entirely consistent with this Court's statements—made in denying both parties‟ requests to seal documents—that “[t]he United States district court is a public institution, and the workings of litigation must be open to public view. Pretrial submissions are a part of trial.
Samsung's brief statement and transmission of public materials in response to press inquiries was not motivated by or designed to influence jurors. The members of the jury had already been selected at the time of the statement and the transmission of these public exhibits, and had been specifically instructed not to read any form of media relating to this case. The information provided therefore was not intended to, nor could it, “have a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing an adjudicative proceeding.
Apple in the meantime said it plans to file an emergency motion for sanctions and “other relief that may be appropriate” as a result of Samsung issuance of the excluded evidence. The letter was said to be issued by Apple attorney William Lee, a partner in the Litigation/Controversy and Intellectual Property Departments at law firm, WilmerHale. Samsung’s entire statement was reprinted in Apple’s letter and accompanied by examples of media reports containing the leaked evidence. The following was mentioned in the letter:
The Judge's exclusion of evidence on independent creation meant that even though Apple was allowed to inaccurately argue to the jury that the F700 was an iPhone copy, Samsung was not allowed to tell the jury the full story and show the pre-iPhone design for that and other phones that were in development at Samsung in 2006, before the iPhone. The excluded evidence would have established beyond doubt that Samsung did not copy the iPhone design. Fundamental fairness requires that the jury decide the case based on all the evidence.