Case 5:05-cv-00334-RMW Document 2243 Filed 09/22/2008 Page 1 of 3

1 Gregory P. Stone (State Bar No. 078329)

Keith R.D. Hamilton (State Bar No. 252115)
2 MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP
355 South Grand Avenue, 35th Floor
3 Los Angeles, California 90071-1560
Telephone: (213) 683-9100
4 Facsimile: (213) 687-3702
Email: gregory.stone@mto.com;
5 keith.hamilton@mto.com
6 Burton A. Gross (State Bar No. 166285)
Carolyn Hoecker Luedtke (State Bar No. 207976)
7 MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP
560 Mission Street, 27th Floor
8 San Francisco, California 94105
Telephone: (415) 512-4000
9 Facsimile: (415) 512-4077
Email: burton.gross@mto.com;
10 carolyn.luedtke@mto.com
11 Attorneys for RAMBUS INC.
12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

13 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SAN JOSE DIVISION

14

15 RAMBUS INC., CASE NO.: C 05-00334 RMW

16 Plaintiff, RAMBUS INC.’S NOTICE OF

EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO
17 vs. EXHIBITS IDENTIFIED BY
SAMSUNG FOR USE IN DIRECT
18 HYNIX SEMICONDUCTOR INC., et al., EXAMINATION OF JAY SHIM

19 Defendants.

20

21

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

23 Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant
24 vs.
25
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., et al.
26
Defendants/Counter-Plaintiffs
27

28

5976965.1
 Case 5:05-cv-00334-RMW Document 2243 Filed 09/22/2008 Page 2 of 3

1 On September 18, 2008, Defendants and Counter-Plaintiffs Samsung Electronics Co.,

2 Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., and Samsung Austin Semiconductor, L.P. (collectively
3 “Samsung”) disclosed a list of 77 trial exhibits for potential use in Samsung’s examination of
4 Samsung witness Jay Shim. Pursuant to the procedure established by the Court at the pretrial
5 conference, Rambus Inc. (“Rambus”) gave notice to Samsung of six exhibits on Samsung’s
6 disclosure for which Rambus expected to have evidentiary objections, assuming, of course, that a
7 proper foundation was laid for the others. Samsung has not responded to Rambus’s notice and
8 has not withdrawn the exhibits for which Rambus identified objections. Rambus sets forth below
9 the exhibits that were identified in Rambus’s notice and a summary of the basis for its objection
10 to each document. Rambus reserves its right to object to other exhibits disclosed by Samsung for
11 use with Jay Shim, to the extent Samsung fails to lay a proper foundation or otherwise seeks to
12 introduce or use them in a manner not consistent with the Federal Rules of Evidence or other
13 applicable rules.
14 The exhibits for which Rambus has given notice of its evidentiary objections, and as to
15 which these objections remain unresolved, are as follows:
16

17 Exhibit Number Objection

18 Ex. 4260: Rambus objects to Exhibit 4260 as inadmissible hearsay under Fed. R.
Evid. 802 and on the ground that Mr. Shim is not a proper witness to
19 authenticate this exhibit or otherwise lay the foundation for its admission
into evidence.
20

21 Ex. 4412: Rambus objects to Exhibit 4412 on the ground that the document is
responsive to Rambus’s requests for production in these actions and was
22 not produced by Samsung in discovery in violation of Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c)
and in violation of Samsung’s disclosure obligations under Fed. R. Civ. P.
23 26(a).
24 //
25 //
26 //
27 //
28 //

5976965.1
1
 Case 5:05-cv-00334-RMW Document 2243 Filed 09/22/2008 Page 3 of 3

1 Exs. 4438 & 4439: Exhibit 4438 is an internal Samsung document in Korean, and Exhibit
4439 is an English translation submitted by Samsung. Rambus objects to
2 these exhibits on ground that they are inadmissible hearsay and contain
within them inadmissible hearsay statements. Fed. R. Evid. 802. Rambus
3 further objects on the ground that the exhibits are responsive to discovery
requests made by Rambus more than two years ago, and yet were not
4 produced until after the close of discovery and less than four weeks before
trial, in violation of Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c) and Samsung’s disclosure
5 obligations under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a). Rambus further objects on the
ground that Mr. Shim is not a proper witness to authenticate these exhibits
6 or otherwise lay the foundation for their admission. Rambus further
objects to the accuracy of the translation and, if these exhibits are admitted
7 into evidence, reserves its right to seek admission of Exhibit No. 10677,
which is a certified English translation of the exhibit that Rambus has
8 obtained from an independent translator.
9 Exs. 4446 & 4446A: Exhibit 4446 is an internal Samsung document in Korean, and Exhibit
4446A is an English translation submitted by Samsung. Rambus objects to
10 these exhibits on ground that they are inadmissible hearsay. Fed. R. Evid.
802. Rambus further objects on the ground that the exhibits are responsive
11 to discovery requests made by Rambus more than two years ago, and yet
were not produced until after the close of discovery and less than three
12 weeks before trial, in violation of Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c) and Samsung’s
disclosure obligations under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a). Rambus further objects
13 on the ground that Mr. Shim is not a proper witness to authenticate these
exhibits or otherwise lay the foundation for their admission. Rambus
14 further objects to the accuracy of the translation and, if these exhibits are
admitted into evidence, reserves its right to seek admission of Exhibit No.
15 10682, which is a certified English translation of the exhibit that Rambus
has obtained from an independent translator.
16

17
Respectfully submitted:
18
DATED: September 22, 2008 MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP
19

20
By: /s/ Keith R. D. Hamilton
21 KEITH R. D. HAMILTON
22 Attorneys for RAMBUS INC.
23

24

25

26

27

28

5976965.1
-2-