Attorney List On Signature Page

Case 5:05-cv-00334-RMW Document 2124 Filed 09/02/2008 Page 1 of 12
1 Attorney list on signature page

2
8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA – SAN JOSE DIVISION
10 RAMBUS, INC.,
11 Plaintiff. Case No. C 05-00334 RMW
v.
12 SAMSUNG’S MOTION IN LIMINE TO
HYNIX SEMICONDUCTOR INC., HYNIX EXCLUDE PRIVILEGED
13 SEMICONDUCTOR AMERICA INC., HYNIX DOCUMENTS PRODUCED
SEMICONDUCTOR MANUFACTURING PURSUANT TO THE COURT’S
14 AMERICA INC., IMPLIED WAIVER ORDER
15 SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., Date: Sept. 16, 2008
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., Time: 2:00 p.m.
16 SAMSUNG SEMICONDUCTOR, INC., Location: Courtroom 5
SAMSUNG AUSTIN SEMICONDUCTOR, L.P., Judge: Hon. Ronald M. Whyte
17
NANYA TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION,
18 NANYA TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION
U.S.A.,
19
20 Defendants.
21 RAMBUS, INC.,
22 Plaintiff. Case No. C 05-02298 RMW

v.
23
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.,
24 SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC.,
SAMSUNG SEMICONDUCTOR, INC.,
25 SAMSUNG AUSTIN SEMICONDUCTOR, L.P.,
26 Defendants.
27
28
SAMSUNG’S MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE PRIVILEGED CASE NO. C 05 00334 RMW
DOCUMENTS PRODUCED PURSUANT TO THE COURT’S IMPLIED CASE NO. C 05 02298 RMW
WAIVER ORDER
1 TO PLAINTIFF RAMBUS, INC. (“Rambus”), and ITS COUNSEL OF RECORD:

2 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT Defendants Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.,
3 Samsung Electronics America, Inc., Samsung Semiconductor, Inc., and Samsung Austin
4 Semiconductor, L.P. (collectively, “Samsung”), hereby move for an order barring Rambus from
5 introducing, discussing, or eliciting testimony regarding any privileged document produced by
6 Samsung pursuant to this Court’s implied waiver order at the September 22, 2008 trial. This
7 motion shall be heard at the pretrial conference on September 16, 2008 at 2:00 p.m.
8 This motion is based upon this Notice of Motion and Motion, the attached
9 Memorandum of Points and Authorities, the Declaration of Dana K. Powers filed herewith, all of
10 the pleadings filed in this action, and upon such further oral and written argument as may be
11 received by the Court.
12 Dated: September 2, 2008
13 WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES, LLP
14
By: /s/ David J. Healey
15 David J. Healey
MATTHEW D. POWERS (Bar No. 104795)
16 Email: matthew.powers@weil.com
EDWARD R. REINES (Bar No. 135930)
17 Email: edward.reines@weil.com
WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP
18 201 Redwood Shores Parkway
Redwood Shores, CA 94065
19 Telephone: (650) 802-3000
Facsimile: (650) 802-3100
20 DAVID J. HEALEY (admitted pro hac vice)
Email: david.healey@weil.com
21 ANITA E. KADALA (admitted pro hac vice)
Email: anita.kadala@weil.com
22 WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP
700 Louisiana, Suite 1600
23 Houston, TX 77002
Telephone: (713) 546-5000
24 Facsimile: (713) 224-9511
25 Attorneys for Defendants,
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.,
26 SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC.,
SAMSUNG SEMICONDUCTOR, INC., and
27 SAMSUNG AUSTIN SEMICONDUCTOR, L.P
28
SAMSUNG’S MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE PRIVILEGED CASE NO. C 05 00334 RMW
DOCUMENTS PRODUCED PURSUANT TO THE COURT’S IMPLIED 1 CASE NO. C 05 02298 RMW
WAIVER ORDER
1 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

2 I. INTRODUCTION
3 Rambus has improperly included 22 privileged documents on its September 22,
4 2008 Trial Exhibit List and provided Samsung no warning that it intended to do so. The
5 documents were produced to Rambus for a limited purpose: solely because the Court determined
6 that they were vital to Rambus’s ability to fairly present a case on counterclaims related to the
7 improper conduct of Neil Steinberg (Samsung’s Counterclaims IV-VII, hereinafter “Steinberg
8 Counterclaims”). But in its August 11, 2008 Order Granting Rambus’s Motion for Summary
9 Judgment on Counts IV-VII of Samsung’s Counterclaims, the Court found the claims barred by
10 the statute of limitations. Yet Rambus still seeks to use Samsung’s privileged documents during
11 the September trial, even though the limited purpose for their production is no longer applicable.
12 Rambus’s continued use of these documents is unfairly prejudicial to Samsung and exceeds the
13 scope of the Court’s implied waiver order. Therefore, Samsung respectfully requests that the
14 Court grant its motion and bar Rambus from introducing, referencing, eliciting testimony, or
15 otherwise using in any way at the September 22 trial privileged documents produced pursuant to
16 the Court’s implied waiver order.1
17 II. BACKGROUND
18 On September 4, 2007, Rambus filed a motion to compel against Samsung seeking
19 production of privileged documents based on Samsung’s Steinberg Counterclaims. (See
20 Rambus’s Mot. to Compel Regarding Samsung’s Privilege Waiver By Claim Assertion.) Rambus
21 argued that Samsung’s assertion of the Discovery Rule and the Doctrine of Equitable Tolling, as
22 well as its claim that Mr. Steinberg acquired confidential information while working at Samsung
23 amounted to an implied waiver of privilege as to Samsung’s knowledge of Mr. Steinberg’s work
24 for Rambus and as to Mr. Steinberg’s work at Samsung. (Id. at 12-17.) On September 26, 2007,
25 the Special Master granted Rambus’s motion, holding that Samsung had “placed the issue of what
26 1
Rambus has filed a motion in limine seeking to bar Samsung from using Rambus’s privileged
27 documents during the September 22 trial. As described more fully in Samsung’s forthcoming
opposition brief, unlike Rambus Samsung’s use of these documents is entirely appropriate
28 because it seeks to use the documents within the scope of Rambus’s waiver.
MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF SAMSUNG’S MOTION IN LIMINE CASE NO. C 05 00334 RMW
TO EXCLUDE PRIVILEGED DOCUMENTS PRODUCED PURSUANT 1 CASE NO. C 05 02298 RMW
TO THE COURT’S IMPLIED WAIVER ORDER
1 it knew about Steinberg’s work at Rambus at issue in this litigation” (Order Granting Rambus
2 Inc.’s Mot. to Compel Regarding Samsung’s Privilege Waiver By Claim Assertion (hereinafter,
3 “Order Granting Mot. to Compel”) at 14), and had also “placed at issue of [sic] the specific nature
4 of Steinberg’s work at Samsung and whether it gave Steinberg access to confidential information
5 that was useful to Rambus” (id. at 16). On November 13, 2007, this Court sustained Samsung’s
6 objection to the scope of the order and directed the Special Master to conduct an in camera
7 review to limit the production to “documents vital to Rambus’s ability to fairly present its case”
8 and to ensure that the “documents [are] produced under a protective order [that] otherwise
9 preserve[s] Samsung’s attorney-client and work-product privileges.” (Order Sustaining in Part
10 and Overruling in Part Samsung’s Objections to Implied Waiver Order (hereinafter, “November
11 13, 2007 Order”) at 10-11.)
12 On April 16, 2008, the Special Master issued its Amended Order re In Camera
13 Review of Samsung Documents, which directed Samsung to “produce to Rambus all of the
14 documents on Samsung’s Log of Steinberg’s Privileged Documents that Samsung concedes fall
15 within the terms of the November 13, 2007 order.” (Am. Order re In Camera Review of
16 Steinberg Docs. at 18.) On April 28, 2008, Samsung produced to Rambus a set of privileged
17 documents, noting specifically that “their use is narrowly limited to the implied waiver of
18 privilege based on claim assertion in the above-captioned cases.” See Declaration of Dana K.
19 Powers in Support of Samsung’s Motion In Limine to Exclude Privileged Documents Produced
20 Pursuant to the Court’s Implied Waiver Order (hereinafter, “Powers Decl.”), Ex. 1 (April 28,
21 2008 Letter from P. Mok to C. Luedtke). Samsung continued to produce documents in accordance
22 with the Special Master’s in camera review through July 28, 2008. See Powers Decl., Ex. 2 (July
23 28, 2008 Email from N. Bennett). On August 11, 2008, the Court granted Rambus’s motion for
24 summary judgment of Samsung’s Steinberg Counterclaims.2 The Special Master then requested
25 2
Samsung alleges additional claims and defenses related to the conduct of Mr. Steinberg:
26 specifically, its Count X (declaratory judgment of unenforceability by estoppel), and its Sixth,
Seventh, and Eighth Affirmative Defenses (equitable estoppel, estoppel, and implied license,
27 respectively). Samsung does not intend to pursue any of these remaining Steinberg-related claims
or defenses in the September 22 trial and has attempted to reach a stipulation with Rambus to
28 dismiss them in full or in part as necessary. The parties have been unable to reach an agreement,
however, and Samsung has filed a motion to dismiss in order to resolve the outstanding issues. In
1 each parties’ position whether the in camera review should continue, and Rambus’s only
2 argument raised in support of the continuing relevance of the “discovery implicated by the
3 implied waiver order” was that Samsung might raise Steinberg-related claims or defenses in the
4 January 2009 patent trial. See Powers Decl., Ex. 3 (Aug. 22, 2008 Letter from C. Luedtke).
5 Samsung’s August 27, 2008 letter in response made clear that it did not believe any basis for
6 implied waiver remained. See Powers Decl., Ex. 4 (Aug. 27, 2008 Letter from D. Healey). On
7 August 27, 2008, the Special Master agreed and concluded the in camera review, holding that
8 “the basis for the Special Master’s prior finding of an implied waiver has been removed from the
9 334 and 2298 actions.” (Third Order of the Special Master Re In Camera Review of Steinberg
10 Docs. at 7.)
11 On August 27, 2008, Rambus submitted its Trial Exhibit List with the following
12 entries: 9061, 9077, 9077A, 9078, 9078A, 9079, 9081, 9081A, 9128, 9129, 9133, 9134, 9136,
13 9137, 9138, 9139, 9321, 9334, 9335, 9336, 9337, 9351. Each of these documents has been
14 logged by Samsung as privileged3 and produced to Rambus only pursuant to the Court’s implied
15 waiver order. Prior to receiving Rambus’s Trial Exhibit List on August 27, 2008, Samsung was
16 unaware that Rambus intended to use its privileged documents at trial for purposes other than
17 addressing Samsung’s Steinberg-related claims. Accordingly, Samsung respectfully submits this
18 Motion In Limine in accordance with the Court’s August 26, 2008 scheduling order regarding
19 issues discovered after the exchange of exhibits and witness lists.
20
21
22 the event that the remaining Steinberg-related claims and defenses are removed from the case,
Rambus would clearly have no further basis for its use of Samsung’s privileged documents and
23 should be barred entirely from using them at trial. But even were these claims and defenses to
remain in the case, Samsung does not believe any of the privileged documents contain
24 information that is “vital” for Rambus’s defense. If the Court does find the documents vital to any
specific remaining claims, however, Samsung requests that Rambus be barred from using the
25 privileged documents described herein at the September 22 trial for any purpose not related to
those specific claims.
26 3
Rambus’s Trial Exhibit 9128 was not placed on a privilege log prior to production because it
27 was discovered only during the process of complying with the Court’s order. Nonetheless, it was
marked privileged and stamped with a footer indicating its production was limited to the implied
28 waiver order.
1 III. ARGUMENT
2 A. The Scope Of The Implied Waiver Order Is Limited To Samsung’s Steinberg
3 Counterclaims
4 Rambus was permitted access to Samsung’s privileged documents for the limited
5 purpose of preparing and presenting a case regarding Samsung’s Steinberg Counterclaims. But
6 the Court has granted Rambus’s motion for summary judgment on these claims, and thus they
7 will not be addressed during the September 22, 2008 trial. Rambus has nonetheless included 22 of
8 Samsung’s privileged documents on its Trial Exhibit List, presumably to be used for purposes
9 unrelated to Samsung’s Steinberg Counterclaims.4 Such use is contrary to the reasoning and
10 intent of the Court’s implied waiver order and would be manifestly unfair to Samsung.
11 On September 26, 2007, the Special Master held that, “[p]ursuant to the implied
12 waiver doctrine, Samsung has waived any attorney-client privilege and work product claims it
13 otherwise might have regarding: (1) Samsung’s knowledge of the work Mr. Steinberg performed
14 for Rambus; and (2) the work that Mr. Steinberg performed while at Samsung that purportedly
15 gave him access to the (largely unspecified) confidential information that Samsung claims was
16 taken and misused.” (Order Granting Mot. to Compel at 17). The scope of this waiver has never
17 been expanded. Indeed, the Court’s November 13, 2007 Order made clear that “the court must
18 impose a waiver no broader than needed to ensure the fairness of the proceedings before it.”
19 (November 13, 2007 Order at 9 (quoting Bittaker v. Woodford, 331 F.3d 715, 720 (9th Cir. 2003)
20 (internal quotes omitted))). And in the April 16, 2008 Amended Order Re In Camera Review Of
21 Samsung Documents, the Special Master ordered that any production under the implied waiver
22 order “shall be governed by the terms of the parties’ existing protective order so as to otherwise
23 preserve Samsung’s attorney-client and work product privileges.” (Am. Order re In Camera
24 Review Of Samsung Docs. at 18.) The Special Master held on August 27, 2008, that “[i]n light of
25 the Court’s August 11, 2008 order granting Rambus’s motion for summary judgment of
26
4
27 Although a dispute remains regarding how to resolve Samsung’s remaining Steinberg-related
claims, see note 2 supra., the exhibit lists exchanged by the parties on August 27, 2008 were
28 prepared with the understanding that these remaining claims would be dismissed by stipulation.
1 Samsung’s Steinberg-related claims, the basis for the Special Master’s prior finding of an implied
2 waiver has been removed from the 334 and 2298 actions.” (Third Order of the Special Master Re
3 In Camera Review of Steinberg Docs. at 7.)
4 At no point has the Court indicated that Samsung’s production of privileged
5 documents would amount to a general waiver of privilege that would permit Rambus to use those
6 documents beyond the limited purpose of the implied waiver order. Indeed, in its November 13,
7 2007 Order, the Court sustained Samsung’s objection that the scope of the implied waiver order
8 must be closely tailored to Rambus’s needs and must otherwise prevent a broader waiver than
9 intended. (November 13, 2007 Order at 10-11.) Notably, at no point has Rambus argued that its
10 need for Samsung’s privileged documents extends beyond the scope of Samsung’s Steinberg
11 Counterclaims. The contours of the implied waiver order were clearly drawn to prevent any
12 greater waiver of Samsung’s privilege than was determined necessary for Rambus’s defenses to
13 the Steinberg Counterclaims. Once these contours were imposed, Samsung was entitled to rely on
14 them and “not be unfairly surprised in the future by learning that it actually waived more than it
15 bargained for in pressing its claims." See Bittaker, 331 F.3d at 721.
16 B. Samsung Has Not Waived Privilege Beyond The Scope Of The Implied
17 Waiver Order
18 Compelled production of documents does not waive privilege where the privilege
19 holder pursues all reasonable means to protect and preserve the privilege. See United States v. de
20 la Jara, 973 F.2d 746, 749-50 (9th Cir. 1992) (explaining that attorney-client privilege is not
21 waived through compelled production of materials, and is preserved "if the privilege holder has
22 made efforts 'reasonably designed' to protect and preserve the privilege" but waived "if the
23 privilege holder fails to pursue all reasonable means of preserving the confidentiality of the
24 privileged matter."); see also 2 Paul R. Rice, Attorney-Client Privilege in the United States § 9.25
25 (2d ed. 1999) (“[C]ourts generally hold that when production of privileged communications is
26 judicially compelled, compliance with the order does not waive the attorney-client privilege that
27 should have shielded the communications from disclosure.”). Samsung took all reasonable steps
28 available to protect and preserve its privilege claims. It designated all of the documents with the
1 highest level of confidentiality permitted by the protective order entered in these cases. It made
2 clear to Rambus that the production of privileged documents was only for a limited purpose and
3 should not be used beyond the narrow scope of the Court’s order. In the cover letter enclosing
4 Samsung’s first production of Steinberg-related privileged documents to Rambus, Samsung stated
5 clearly that “their use is narrowly limited to the implied waiver of privilege based on claim
6 assertion in the above-captioned cases.” See Powers Decl., Ex. 1 (April 28, 2008 Letter from P.
7 Mok to C. Luedtke). Further, Samsung included a footer on each document stating: “Privileged –
8 Produced Pursuant to In Camera Review Order ([Order Date]) Based on Limited Waiver of
9 Privilege Based on Claim Assertion in 2298/334 Litigation.“5 And Samsung diligently sought
10 redaction of all privileged material from documents filed with or by the Court, including the
11 Order Granting Rambus’s Motion For Summary Judgment on Counts IV-VII of Samsung’s
12 Counterclaims. See Powers Decl., Ex. 5 (Aug. 16, 2008 Letter from D. Powers) (“These
13 redactions cover quotations and paraphrases of Samsung documents that are privileged and
14 confidential, documents that were produced pursuant only to the Court's limited implied waiver order.
15 Public disclosure would cause material prejudice to Samsung's right to continue to assert attorney-
16 client privilege and/or work-product protection with respect to these documents.“). Indeed, Samsung
17 has taken all reasonable steps to protect the confidentiality of the privileged documents and to
18 prevent its limited production from leading to any broader waiver of privilege than that required
19 by the Court’s order.
20 With no further basis on which to claim that privilege has been waived, Rambus
21 cannot continue to make use of Samsung’s privileged documents – particularly for purposes
22 entirely unrelated to the original implied waiver order. Indeed, Rambus acknowledges as much in
23 its June 25, 2008 Motion to Strike Portions of Samsung’s Opposition to Rambus’s Motion For
24 Summary Judgment (“Rambus’s Mot. to Strike”), now incorporated in Rambus’s Motion In
25 5
This footer was not added to the nine documents produced pursuant to the Court’s July 16, 2008
26 Order Sustaining In Part And Overruling In Part Samsung’s Objections To Implied Waiver Order
because Samsung was ordered to produce these documents to Rambus immediately so that they
27 could be reviewed prior to the start of the deposition of Mr. Jun Park the next morning.
Nonetheless, it has been made abundantly clear to Rambus that Samsung’s production of
28 privileged documents has been for a limited purpose only.
1 Limine To Bar Use of Privileged Evidence At Trial. (Rambus’s Mot. to Strike at 9 n.2) (“Rambus
2 can point to documents on Samsung’s privilege log that appear to be relevant to issues to be tried
3 in September, but Rambus does not get access to those documents just because it thinks they
4 would be relevant to Rambus’s claims or defenses.”). Doing so would unfairly permit Rambus to
5 leverage its limited access to Samsung’s privilege documents into a general privilege waiver, and
6 would set a dangerous precedent for further use of these documents during the January 2008
7 Patent Trial.
8 B. The Documents Placed On Rambus’s Trial Exhibit List Are Privileged
9 Rambus has never questioned that the documents produced pursuant to the implied
10 waiver order are, in fact, privileged. Nonetheless, it is Samsung’s burden to establish that
11 privilege attaches. Therefore, the basis for attorney-client privilege and/or work product
12 protection are described for each document below.6
13
14 Rambus Samsung’s
Trial Privilege Basis for Privilege
15 Exhibit Claim
16 9061, AC 8/18/2000 confidential memo regarding licensing negotiations with
17 9129 Rambus. It was prepared by Jay Shim and sent to Samsung’s Legal
18 Department for the purpose of rendering legal advice. See Powers Decl.,
19 Ex. 6 (Charles Donohoe 5/13/08 Deposition) at 149:10-151:6; Powers
20 Decl., Ex. 7 (Samsung’s Supplemental Log of Privileged Documents–
21 11/19/2007) at 100, SSP 1677.

23 9077A Rambus on 9/19/2000. It was prepared by Han Yong Uhm and sent to Jay
24 Shim and Charles Donohoe for the purpose of rendering legal advice. See
25 Powers Decl., Ex. 8 (Charles Donohoe 5/14/08 Deposition) at 65:11-
26 70:3; Powers Decl., Ex. 7 at 95, SSP 1622.
27 6
Samsung has lodged the 22 privileged documents with the Court in the event that an in camera
28 review is deemed necessary. Samsung reserves its right to supplement this showing as necessary.
2 Exhibit Claim
4 9078A Rambus on 9/19/2000. It was prepared by Han Yong Uhm and sent to Jay
5 Shim and Charles Donohoe for the purpose of rendering legal advice.
6 See Powers Decl., Ex. 8 at 70:4-72:2; Powers Decl., Ex. 7 at 96, SSP
7 1633.
8 9079 AC, AWP 9/23/2000 confidential email from Charles Donohoe to Jay Shim
9 regarding licensing negotiations with Rambus. It reflects attorney mental
10 impressions and communicates legal advice. See Powers Decl., Ex. 8 at
11 73:18-74:23; Powers Decl., Ex. 7 at 96, SSP 1632.
12 9081, AC 10/2/2000 confidential minutes of a licensing negotiation meeting with
13 9081A Rambus. It was prepared by a member of Samsung’s IP team and sent to
14 Charles Donohoe for the purpose of rendering legal advice. See Powers
15 Decl., Ex. 8 at 83:3-84:17; Powers Decl., Ex. 7 at 104, SSP 1733.
16 9128 AC 1/7/1997 confidential memo from Neil Steinberg to Jun Sung Park
17 regarding NEC licensing. The document reflects attorney mental
18 impressions and was communicated confidentially for the purpose of
19 rendering legal advice. This document was discovered just prior to
20 production and had not been previously included on a privilege log.
21 Nonetheless, it was marked privileged and stamped with a footer
22 indicating its production was limited pursuant to the Court’s implied
23 waiver order.
24 9133 AC 2/1/2001 confidential memo from Ikchul Kim (Senior Manager, Memory
25 IP Group, Samsung) to Jay Shim regarding licensing. It communicates
26 attorney mental impressions and legal advice. See Powers Decl., Ex. 7 at
27 100, SSP 1673.
28
2 Exhibit Claim
3 9134 AC 6/1/2001 confidential email regarding Rambus licensing, sent by Charles
4 Donohoe to Jun Sung Park, Gwangho Kim, and Youngjo Lim. It
5 communicates attorney mental impressions and legal advice. See Powers
6 Decl., Ex. 9 (Jun Park 7/18/08 Deposition) at 179:19-180:17; Powers
7 Decl., Ex. 7 at 103, SSP 1718.
8 9136, AC 6/10/2001 confidential minutes of a licensing negotiation meeting with

9 9137 Rambus. It was prepared by the Samsung IP team and communicated for
10 the purpose of rendering legal advice. See Powers Decl., Ex. 9 at 187:25-
11 189:5; Powers Decl., Ex. 7 at 104, SSP 1735.
12 9138 AC 8/17/2000 confidential email regarding a meeting with Micron from
13 Charles Donohoe to J.N. Yang (Mr. Donohoe’s secretary). It contains
14 attorney mental impressions and legal advice, and was communicated for
15 the purpose of rendering legal advice. See Powers Decl., Ex. 7 at 103,
16 SSP 1726.
17 9139 AC, AWP 3/21/2001 confidential internal Samsung email reflecting attorney mental
18 impressions and legal advice regarding a Micron subpoena. See Powers
19 Decl., Ex. 7 at 101, SSP 1695.
20 9321 AC 9/14/2000 confidential email regarding the Rambus-FTC case from
21 Charles Donohoe to Jay Shim and T.S. Jung. It communicates attorney
22 mental impressions and legal advice. See Powers Decl., Ex. 7 at 95, SSP
23 1619.
24 9334, AC, AWP 1/18/2001 confidential email from Jun Sung Park to Gwangho Kim,
25 9335 Injung Lee, Youngjo Lim, and Kyungik Woo regarding and forwarding
26 an email from Chuck Donohoe to David Healey concerning Rambus. It
27 communicates attorney mental impressions and legal advice. See Powers
28 Decl., Ex. 10 at 2, SSP 2025.
2 Exhibit Claim
3 9336 AC 6/4/2001 confidential memo from Jay Shim to Charles Donohoe and
4 Gwang Ho Kim regarding a phone conversation with Neil Steinberg
5 concerning licensing. It communicates attorney mental impressions and
6 legal advice. See Powers Decl., Ex. 7 at 104, SSP 1729.
7 9337 AC 6/12/2001 confidential memo from Jay Shim to Jon Kang, Chuck
8 Donohoe, and Gwang Ho Kim regarding a phone conversation with Neil
9 Steinberg concerning licensing. It communicates attorney mental
10 impressions and legal advice. See Powers Decl., Ex. 7 at 104, SSP 1730.
11 9351 AC 7/19/2000 confidential email from Tae Sung Jung to Jay Shim regarding
12 Rambus IP. It communicates attorney mental impressions and legal
13 advice. See Powers Decl., Ex. 7 at 94, SSP 1616.
14 IV. CONCLUSION
15 Rambus’s use of Samsung’s privileged documents during the September 22, 2008
16 trial would expand the Court’s implied waiver order beyond its intended scope, and would be
17 manifestly unfair to Samsung. Samsung has diligently worked to preserve its attorney-client
18 privilege and work product claims to these documents. Because the basis for the implied waiver
19 order has been eliminated, Rambus no longer has a legitimate claim to use the privileged
20 documents it received pursuant to that order. Accordingly, and for reasons stated herein, Samsung
21 respectfully requests that the Court grant its Motion In Limine to Exclude Use of Samsung’s
22 Privileged Documents At The September 22, 2008 Trial.
23 Dated: September 2, 2008 WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES, LLP
24 By: /s/ David J. Healey
David J. Healey
25
Attorneys for Defendants,
26 SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.,
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC.,
27 SAMSUNG SEMICONDUCTOR, INC., and
SAMSUNG AUSTIN SEMICONDUCTOR, L.P
28

Attorney List On Signature Page

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Attorney List On Signature Page

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case 5:05-cv-00334-RMW Document 2124 Filed 09/02/2008 Page 1 of 12

1 Attorney list on signature page

8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

22 Plaintiff. Case No. C 05-02298 RMW

1 TO PLAINTIFF RAMBUS, INC. (“Rambus”), and ITS COUNSEL OF RECORD:

1 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

16 9061, AC 8/18/2000 confidential memo regarding licensing negotiations with

19 Ex. 6 (Charles Donohoe 5/13/08 Deposition) at 149:10-151:6; Powers

20 Decl., Ex. 7 (Samsung’s Supplemental Log of Privileged Documents–

21 11/19/2007) at 100, SSP 1677.

22 9077, AC 9/21/2000 confidential memo regarding licensing negotiations with

3 9078, AC 9/21/2000 confidential memo regarding licensing negotiations with

3 9134 AC 6/1/2001 confidential email regarding Rambus licensing, sent by Charles

4 Donohoe to Jun Sung Park, Gwangho Kim, and Youngjo Lim. It

5 communicates attorney mental impressions and legal advice. See Powers

6 Decl., Ex. 9 (Jun Park 7/18/08 Deposition) at 179:19-180:17; Powers

7 Decl., Ex. 7 at 103, SSP 1718.

8 9136, AC 6/10/2001 confidential minutes of a licensing negotiation meeting with

4 Gwang Ho Kim regarding a phone conversation with Neil Steinberg

5 concerning licensing. It communicates attorney mental impressions and

6 legal advice. See Powers Decl., Ex. 7 at 104, SSP 1729.

You might also like