Embed Doc
Copy Link
Readcast
Collections

CommentGo Back

Download

I23

568910ll12l314l5l617l819202122232425262728JOSEPH . COTCHETI#36324)PHTLTP. GREGORY#95217)COTCHETT,ITRX& McCARTHYSanFrancisco irport OfficeCenter840MalcolmRoad,uite 00Burlingame,A 94010Telephone:(650)697-6000GREGORY .STONE#78329)BRADLEYS.PHILLPS#8s263)STEVEN. PERRY#106ls4)KErTHR.D.HAMTLTON#2s2tr5)MI.JNGER"OLLES OLSONLP355SouthGrand venue,5thFloorLosAngeles,A 90071-1560Telephone:(213)683-9100susAN TRAUBBOYD#229664)LEES.TAYLoR(#243863)MTRTAMzuM#238230)MI.JNGEROLLESOLSON LP560Mission treet, 7thFloorSanFrancisco,A94105-2907Telephone:415)5124000AttomeysorPlaintiffRAMBUSNC.

RAMBUSNC.,Plaintiff,vs.MICRONTECHNOLOGY, NC., et al.,Defendants.SUPERIORCOURT O['TIIESTATE OF CALIFOR}IIACOTINTY OF SAI\ F'RANCISCOCase o.:04431105RAMBUS NC.'S BRIEF REGARDINGDEFEI\DANTS' SPOLIATION OFEVIDENCEPTJBLICREDAC"TEDVERSIONDate: April 27,2009Time:9:30a.m.Dept: 304Judge:Hon.RichardA. KramerComplaint iled: May 5, 2004Trial Date: April 27,2009

RAMBUSNC.'SBzuEF EGARDINOEFENDANTS'POLIATIONFEVIDENCE

)

45689l0ll

l3t4l516t7l8t920

22232425

2728

II.TABLE OF CONTENTSpageINTRODUCTIONND SUMMARYOFARGUMENT..........................,........,..,....,.....BACKGRO1JND.,..................... ............4A. EvidenceRegardingDefendants'Conspiracy And Their AnticipationofAntitrust itigation....,............;...........................4l. TheSynclinkConsortium...,................ .............................52. SecretMeetings.3. Inter-Defendantommunications......................................6B. Evidence egarding efendants' nticipation f Patent itigation.......,...............8C. EvidenceRegardingDefendants'DeliberateDestnrctionofRelevantDocuments.............................1l. EvidenceRegardingHynix's DeliberateDestructionof RelevantDocuments..................I2. EvidenceThat Hynix OfferedFalseand ncompleteDiscoveryResponsesn An.EffortTo CoverUp Its Document Destruction.,.,........43. EvidenceRegardingSamsung'sDeliberateDestruction of RelevantDocuments...................164. The Scopeof Sarnsung'sDestruction s RevealedBy The DistrictCourtofNewJersey's indingThatSamsung'sRAM GroupIntentionally estroyed mails.............95. Evidence egardingMicron'sDeliberate estruction fRelevantDocuments..................20ARGUMENT..,.,..,,...22A. Under Defendants'ProposedButInappropriate) pproachTo The DutyToPreserveDocuments,DefendantsHad A Duty To PreserveRelevantEvidenceincet Least997...,,............................................,..22B. UnderDefendants'Proposed@utInappropriate)ApproachTo Spoliation,DefendantsntentionallyDeshoyedDocumens n Anticipation ofLitigation.....,....,..,.,.................24C. Under Defendants'Proposed@utInappropriate)ApproachToSpoliation,Defendants' poliationOf Evidence rejudicedambus..........25D.UnderDefendants' roposedButnappropriate)pproach or Sanctions,Rambuss EntitledoProportionateanctions........... .................301UnderDefendants'Inappropriate)Approach,Rambus s EntitledTo Terminatinganctions.......... ............302. UnderDefendants'Inappropriate)pproachToSpoliation,TheCourtShouldDismissMicron'sAnd Samsung's ross-Claims Under heDoctrine f Unclean ands..,,,.................................,............3. According oDefendants'ProposedButInappropriate)Approachfor SpoliationAnd CollateralEstoppel,TerminatingSanctionsShouldBeImposedAgainstSarnsung.............................31

III.

4567I910lll2l3t4l516l8t9

2l22

2425262728

Iv,

TABLEOFCONTENTS(continued)

paqt4.Under Defendants'Inappropriate)ApproachTo Spoliation,TheCourtShouldmpose ssueAnd EvidenceSanctionsTo Prevent Prejudice gainst ambus...,......... .................................325. Under Defendants'Inappropriate)ApproachTo Spoliation,Adversenferencenstructionshould eGiven...................................,..3 E. EvenftheCourtDoesNot ImposeSanctions r GiveAdverse nference Instructions,RambusReservests Right to Offer Evidenceof Defendants'Spoliationt Trial ............................................34

coNcLUSroN.........35