The US Department of Justice has issued a critical response to Apple’s request for evidence from Samsung in connection with an ongoing antitrust case in South Korea. Here are the details.
A little background
A few days ago Apple made a request His defense against the DOJ for documents from Samsung Electronics in South Korea continues antitrust fight over alleged monopolistic practices.
Apple’s request comes after Samsung’s US subsidiary refused to produce the notes. Apple’s lawsuits will shed light on how competitive the smartphone and smartwatch markets actually are, how often users switch between platforms, and whether Apple’s policies have the anti-competitive effects alleged in the lawsuit.
According to Samsung USA, the documents belong only to the Korean parent company, so Apple filed a petition asking the US District Court for the District of New Jersey to issue a formal demand letter to demand the documents from Samsung Electronics in South Korea.
Apple’s request is based on the Hague Evidence Convention, which provides a mechanism for courts to obtain evidence from foreign entities in civil or commercial cases.
If a US court grants Apple’s request, South Korean authorities still have to decide whether to enforce it. However, Samsung may file objections under Korean law that could limit or complicate production.
Which brings us to today.
DOJ criticizes Apple’s request
In a court filing, the DOJ rejected Apple’s reasoning behind the request, arguing that the company had long known both how central Samsung was to the case and that its Korean parent would have some relevant documents.
The DOJ says Apple took too long to comply with the request, arguing that the process was difficult to complete before fact-finding, and that it should not be used to justify the deadlines.
The DOJ adds that if the court grants the request, Apple “must bear the risk that some or all of the evidence it seeks from South Korea may not be returned in a timely manner.”
From the document:
Under no circumstances should a complex and time-consuming foreign judicial proceeding under the Hague Convention be grounds for further extending the fact-finding shutdown or otherwise delaying the adjudication of this matter – especially when Apple decided to wait nine months before filing its motion.
Interestingly, the DOJ emphasizes that it “takes no position on whether the Court should issue a Letter of Inquiry” and instead focuses on the potential for delays in the discovery schedule that could result from this effort.
You can read the DOJ’s full response below:
It’s worth checking out on Amazon
FTC: We use automatic affiliate links that generate income. More.
