You are on page 1of 5

Case 5:05-cv-00334-RMW Document 2193 Filed 09/15/2008 Page 1 of 5

1 GREGORY P. STONE (#78329)


KEITH R. D. HAMILTON (#252115)
2 MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP
355 South Grand Avenue, 35th Floor
3 Los Angeles, CA 90071-1560
Telephone: (213) 683-9100; Facsimile: (213) 687-3702
4 E-mail: gregory.stone@mto.com; keith.hamilton@mto.com
5 BURTON A. GROSS (#166285)
CAROLYN HOECKER LUEDTKE (#207976)
6 MIRIAM KIM (#238230)
MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP
7 560 Mission Street, 27th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94105-2907
8 Telephone: (415) 512-4000; Facsimile: (415) 512-4077
E-mail: burton.gross@mto.com; carolyn.luedtke@mto.com;
9 miriam.kim@mto.com
10
Attorneys for Plaintiff RAMBUS INC.
11
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
12
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SAN JOSE DIVISION
13
RAMBUS INC., CASE NO.: C 05-00334 RMW
14
Plaintiff, RAMBUS INC.’S OPPOSITION TO
15 SAMSUNG’S MOTION REGARDING
v. ADMISSIBILITY OF CERTAIN
16 DOCUMENTS FOR SEPTEMBER 22
HYNIX SEMICONDUCTOR INC., et al., TRIAL
17
Defendants Date: September 16, 2008
18 Time: 3:30 p.m.
Location: Courtroom 6
19 Judge: Hon. Ronald M. Whyte
20

21 RAMBUS INC., CASE NO.: C 05-02298 RMW

22 Plaintiff,
v.
23
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.,
24 et al.,
Defendants
25

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 Document 2193 Filed 09/15/2008 Page 2 of 5

1 I. INTRODUCTION
2 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. BACKGROUND
11 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 1
These two documents provide some of the necessary context for exhibits 4244 through 4246.
2
27 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
28 witness.
-1-
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 Document 2193 Filed 09/15/2008 Page 3 of 5

1 III. 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
For example, Samsung states that trial exhibit 4260 consists of “Rambus’s handwritten notes
23 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
24 “[t]here can be no real question regarding the authenticity of [trial exhibits 4244, 4245, and
4246].” Id. at 2.
25 4
Samsung’s responses to Rambus’s hearsay objections are equally devoid of factual support.
26 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
27 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
28 Rambus business records.
-2-
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 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
Indeed, if these documents are admitted without a witness to lay a proper foundation, it simply
28 shifts to Rambus the burden of calling such a witness.
-3-
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 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. CONCLUSION

7 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
Attorneys for Plaintiff RAMBUS INC.
16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28
-4-
RAMBUS INC.’S OPPOSITION TO SAMSUNG’S MOTION REGARDING ADMISSIBILITY OF CERTAIN DOCUMENTS FOR
SEPTEMBER 22 TRIAL; CASE NOS. 05-00334, 05-02298