I'

I JOSEPH W. COTCHETI(#36324)
PHTLTP L. GREGORY (#95217)
2 COTCHETT,PITRX& McCARTHY
SanFranciscoAirportOfficeCenter
3 840MalcolmRoad,Suite200
Burlingame,CA 94010
A
Telephone: (650)697-6000
5 GREGORY P.STONE(#78329)
BRADLEYS.PHILLPS(#8s263)
6 STEVEN M. PERRY(#106ls4)
KErTHR.D.HAMTLTON (#2s2tr5)
MI.JNGER"TOLLES& OLSONLLP
355SouthGrandAvenue,35thFloor
8 LosAngeles,
CA 90071-1560
Telephone: (213)683-9100
9
susAN TRAUBBOYD(#229664)
10 LEES.TAYLoR (#243863)
MTRTAMzuM (#238230)
ll MI.JNGER TOLLES& OLSONLLP
560MissionStreet,
27thFloor
12 CA 94105-2907
SanFrancisco,
Telephone: (415)5124000
l3
Attomeysfor PlaintiffRAMBUS
INC.
14
SUPERIORCOURT O['TIIE STATE OF CALIFOR}IIA
l5
COTINTY OF SAI\ F'RANCISCO
l6
RAMBUS INC., CaseNo.:04431105
17
Plaintiff, RAMBUS INC.'S BRIEF REGARDING
l8 DEFEI\DANTS' SPOLIATION OF
vs. EVIDENCE
19
MICRONTECHNOLOGY,INC., et al., PTJBLICREDAC"TEDVERSION
20
Defendants. Date: April 27,2009
21 Time: 9:30a.m.
Dept: 304
22 Judge:Hon.RichardA. Kramer

23 ComplaintFiled: May 5, 2004

Trial Date: April 27,2009
24
25
26
27
28

RAMBUSINC.'SBzuEFREGARDINO
DEFENDANTS'
SPOLIATION
OFEVIDENCE
 I TABLE OF CONTENTS
) page
I
INTRODUCTIONAND SUMMARYOFARGUMENT..........................,........,..,....,.....
II. BACKGRO1JND.,..................... ............4
4
A. EvidenceRegardingDefendants'ConspiracyAnd Their Anticipation of
5 AntitrustLitigation.....,.... ........;...........................4
l. TheSynclinkConsortium...,................ .............................5
6
2. SecretMeetings.
3. Inter-Defendant Communications............... .......................6
8 B. EvidenceRegardingDefendants'Anticipationof PatentLitigation.......,...............8
C. EvidenceRegardingDefendants'DeliberateDestnrctionof Relevant
9 Documents ....... .......................1
I
l0 l. EvidenceRegardingHynix's DeliberateDestructionof Relevant
Documents ........ ...........
II
ll 2. EvidenceThat Hynix OfferedFalseandIncompleteDiscovery
l1 Responses In An.EffortTo CoverUp Its DocumentDestruction..,.,........ 14
3. EvidenceRegardingSamsung'sDeliberateDestructionof Relevant
l3 Documents....... ............16
4. The Scopeof Sarnsung'sDestructionIs RevealedBy The District
t4 CourtofNew Jersey'sFindingThatSamsung's DRAM Group
IntentionallyDestroyedEmails .............
19
l5
5. EvidenceRegardingMicron'sDeliberateDestructionof Relevant
16 Documents ....... ............20

t7 III. ARGUMENT.., .,..,,...22

A. Under Defendants'Proposed(But Inappropriate)ApproachTo The Duty
l8 To PreserveDocuments,DefendantsHad A Duty To PreserveRelevant
Evidence SinceAt Least1997....,,............ ................................,..22
t9 B. Under Defendants'Proposed@ut Inappropriate)ApproachTo Spoliation,
DefendantsIntentionallyDeshoyedDocumensIn Anticipation of
20 Litigation.....,.... ,..,.,.................24
zl C. Under Defendants'Proposed@ut Inappropriate)ApproachTo Spoliation,
Defendants'SpoliationOf EvidencePrejudicedRambus. .........25
22 D. UnderDefendants'Proposed (But Inappropriate)
ApproachFor Sanctions,
Rambusis Entitledto Proportionate Sanctions........... .................30
23
1 UnderDefendants'(Inappropriate)Approach,RambusIs Entitled
24 To Terminating Sanctions.......... ............30
2. UnderDefendants'(Inappropriate)ApproachTo Spoliation,The
25 CourtShouldDismissMicron'sAnd Samsung's Cross-Claims
UnderTheDoctrineOf UncleanHands,..,,,.................................,............3
zo
3. Accordingto Defendants'Proposed(But Inappropriate)Approach
27 for SpoliationAnd CollateralEstoppel,TerminatingSanctions
ShouldBeImposedAgainstSarnsung.................. ...........31
28
 I TABLEOFCONTENTS
(continued)
2 paqt
J 4. Under Defendants'(Inappropriate)ApproachTo Spoliation,The
Court ShouldImposeIssueAnd EvidenceSanctionsTo Prevent
4 Prejudice AgainstRambus...,......... .................................32
5. Under Defendants'(Inappropriate)ApproachTo Spoliation,
5 AdverseInference Instructions ShouldBe Given...................................,..33
6 E. EvenIfthe CourtDoesNot ImposeSanctions Or GiveAdverseInference
Instructions,RambusReservesIts Right to Offer Evidenceof Defendants'
7 Spoliation At Trial....................... ......................34

I Iv, coNcLUSroN .........35

9
10
ll
l2
l3
t4
l5
16

l8
t9
2U

2l
22
z5

24
25
26
27
28
 I TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
2
J
FEDERAL CASES
4
Hynk Semiconductor,Inc. v. RambusInc.,
5 No. C-00-20905 RMW, 2009WL 292205(N.D.Cal.Feb.3, 2009)............................2,
10,24
Mosaid Techs.Inc. v. SamsungElectonics Co.,Ltd.,
6 2004WL 2550306 (D.N.J.Juty7,2004).... ......19,20,28,32
7 Mosaid Techs.Inc. v. SamsungElectronics.Co.Ltd.,
348F. Supp.2d332(D.N.J.2004)................ ..........20,25,32
8

9 STATECAsEs

10 Bihunv. AT&T Info. Sys,

13Cal.App. 4th976(1993).. ....................34
ll Cortezv. Purolator Air Filtration Prods. Co.,
23cal4th 163(2000)........ .......................34
t2
NewAlbertsons,Inc. v. Superior Courl,
13 168Cal.App.4th 1403(2008)...... ............32
lilillard v, Caterpillar,
t4 40 cal. App.4th892(1995).. ....................23
l5 ll/illiams v. Russ,
167Cal.App.4th l2l5 (2008)...... ........:...26
l6
17 SurB Srerurps

l8 Califomia Codeof Civil Procedure

Section437c(h). ...............30
t9 CalifomiaEvidenceCode
Section 413 ................32.
33
20 Section 500 .................,....34
at

22
23

25
26
27
28
 I I. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
Hynix, Micron, andSamsung(collectively "Defendants')assertmeritless

J spoliationallegationsagainstRambusbasedon erroneouslegalstandardsfor spoliationand

4 andon unreasonable
sanctions, from the evidence.lThis Courtshouldnot adopt
inferences

5 Defendants'incorrectassertionsof law and fact. However,ifthe Court appliesDefendants'

6 proposedlegal standardsandmodesof drawingfactualinferences,thenthe evidencewill show

7 that eachof the Defendantsengagedin deliberatespoliationttrat sufficiently prejudicedRambus

8 in this litigation so asto warant sanctionsand/oradverseinferenceinstructions,

9 Firsf, applyingDefendants'erroneorsproposedduty standard,Defendantshad a

l0 dutyto preservedocuments
asearlyas 1997whentheydeveloped
a coordinated
strategyto "kill"

ll RDRAM andin so doing recognizedthat this united effort could createantitrustIiability for the

12 co-conspirators.In responseto Intel's selectionof Direct RDRAM asthe next mainstream

13 memoryinterface,DefendantsandotherDRAM manufacturers
usedthe Synclink Consortium,

t4 ostensiblyformedto developan altemativeto RDRAM, to engagein an unlawful concerted

l5 campaignto preventwidespreadmarketacceptanceof RDRAM. By February1998,Defendans

16 weremusingaboutwhethertheywouldneedto visit oneanotherinjail dueto their illegal

t7 conspiracy,^See
Declarationof Miriam Kim in Supportof RambusInc.'s Brief Regarding

l8 Defendants'Spoliationof Evidence('Kim Decl."),Exh.23 (6303at l).2 And by January1999,

t9 tle conspiratorsrecogrrizedthat becauseof their coordinatedefforts to "kilf'RDRAM, it might

20 be wise to form a corporationfor their united front that would "[i]ndemniff membercompanies

2l from anti-trust" liability. Exh.24 (6417at 3). Further,rmderazy standard,oncethe Department

22 of Justice("DOJ") announcedits investigationinto the DRAM industry and servedsubpoenas

on

z)
' Rambushassetforth its argumentsagainstcollateralestoppeland demonsfiatedthe legalerror
24 in Defendants'proposedlegal standarGin separate"Track l" briefing. ,SeeRambus'sOpening
Brief Regardingthe CollateralEffect of the Inuzry 2009Micron Rulingofiled Mar. 10,2009;
25 Rambus'sConsolidatedResponseto Defendants'OpeningBriefs on the Impact ofthe Delaware
SpoliationDecisionasa Matterof Laq filed April 3,2009;Rambus'sReplyBrief Re:the
26 CollateralEfect of the January2009Micron Rriing, filed April 17,2009 ("RambusReply'').
'r'7 The evidenceat trial will demonstratethat Rambusdid not engagein deliberatespoliationthat
sufficiently prejudicedDefendantsin this litigation so asto warrantsanctions.
2 Unlessnotedotherwise,exhibitscited hereinare attachedto the Kim Declaration.
28
1634979.l

RAMBUS INC.'S BRIEF REGARDING DEFENDANTS'SPOLIATION OF EVIDENCE

 I Hynix, Micron, and Samsung,Defendantshada duty to preserveevidencerelevantto the DOJ
2 investigationaswell asthe clearly foreseeable
civil antitoustlitigation relatedto their unlawful
J conduct.
4 Moreover,underDefendants'overly expansiveview ofthe preservationstandard,

5 a duty to preservedocumentsrelatedto tlits antitru litigation alsoarosewhenDefendants

6 patent litgation againstRambus.That duty aroseat leastby the summerof
anticipatedseparate
2000,underDefendants'approach
to spoliation,
whenMicron andHynix decidedto initiatea

8 "coordinated[] dual-front litigation" strategyby filing declaratoryrelief actionsagainstRambus

9 in Califomia and Delaware,seeHynix Semiconductor,Inc. v. RambusInc., No. C-00-20905
l0 RMW, 2009WL 292205,at *5 (N.D. Cal.Feb.3,2009),andSamsung
hiredcounselto monitor

ll the variouspatentlitigationsandweighedlitigationasa potentiatoption.s,See,

a.g.,Exh. 100
t2 (Vl03 (5/14108 Exh.71(5/14/08Donohoe
DonohoeDepo.at9:15-23)); Depo.at 35:23-36:15,
1 3 42:1-20), Rambusdisputesthat anticipationof separatepatentlitigation figgers a duty to
t4 preservein this antitust litigation. Rambusalsodisputesthat a duty to preseryeevidencethat is

l5 relevantandmaterialto patentlitigation with respectto non-compatibleDRAM (suchasSDRAM

l6 and DDR) coversevidencethat is relevantandmaterialto this litigation. But Defendantsare

t7 in theirassertionthat"spolialiondoesnot requireanticipationofa specificcauseof

steadfast
l8 action" andthat anticipationofpatenf litigation triggereda duty to preservedocumentsrelevant

l9 to this litigation. SeeMicron's Responseto OpeningBrief on CollateralEffect of Delaware

20 Ruling,filed April 3, 2009("Micron Response");

Micron'sReplyBrief, filed April 17,2009
1t ("Micron Reply'), at 1:7-8,3:16-18;Samsung's
ReplyBrief, filed April17,2009 ("Samsung

22 Reply"),at2:2-3.

23 Second,if the Courtwereto adoptDefendans' proposedstandardsfor the duty to

24 preserve(which it shouldnot), it would needto find that Defendantsintentionallydestroyed

25 relevantdocumentsafter the presewationduty atlachedasearly as 1997(or altematively,in

26 ' Samsungcontinuednegotiationswith Rambusandelectedto take a licensefor SDRAM and

27 DDR in October2000. While Rambuscontendsthat the eamestandsuccessfirlnesotiationof a
licenseprecludedsuffrcientanticipationofpatent litigation to trigger a duty to preiewe, Samsung
28 assertedthe oppositein the NorthernDistrict of Califomia.
7634979,l

RAMBUSINC.'SBRIEFREGARDING
DEFENDANTS'
SPOLIATIONOFEVIDENCE
 I 2000). Defendantsknew that their conductviolated antitust laws,andthey took affirmative steps
2 to concealevidenceof their misconduct.Given Defendants'knowledgeof the criminal natureof
J their conduc! Defendants'continueddestructionof documentsafter the preservationduty
+ attached(andevenafter litigation with Rambuscommencedandafter they were servedwith

5 subpoenasfrom the DOJ) demonstrates

that their destructionof documentswas deliberate.
6 Third, if the Courtwereto adoptDefendants'proposedincorrectstandardfor

7 prejudice,then the Court would needto find that Defendants'destructionof evidenceprejudiced

8 Rambus. The evidencewill showthat Defendantsengagedin what Defendantsview aslarge-

9 scaledestructionof documentswithout maintainingany recordof the documentsthat tley
t0 destroyedsuchtha! underDefendants'theory ofspoliation, the burdenis on Defendantsto show
ll that Rambushasnot beenprejudicedin its pursuitof its claimshere. Hynix, for example,

l2 destroyedmorethan550boxesof documents
in thesummerof 2002,approximately
two weeks
t3 after it receiveda subpoena
from the DOJregardingits price-fixingactivities.SeeExhs,60 & 6l
14 (OlsonDepo.Exhs.l9 & 20); Exh. 84 (1217104
OlsonDepo.at260:6-262:15);
Exh. 59
l5 (ComputerMemory Chip MakersProbed,A.P. ONLINE,
Jlullre
19,2002). Rambuswill neverknow
l6 the contentsof thoseboxes,but it shouldbe presumed- underDefendanls'view of the world -

t7 thatthe documents
includedcorrespondence
relatedto Hynix'sconspiracyto fix pricesandto
l8 preventRDRAM from achievingmmketsuccess.Similarly,Samsung's
PresidentJonKang,who
1 9 was responsibleat timesfor Samsung'sRDRAM marketingprograms,neverreceiveda litigalion
20 hold notice for Rambus-related
documentsand testifiedttrathe regularly engagedin a "garbage
2l flush" ofthe materialsin his office. Exh.4l (Tr. Ex. 9339);Exh. l0l (V104 (6/19/08Depo.of

22 JonKangat 207:12-208:l).UnderDefendants'approach
to spoliation,the Courtshouldpresume
z.t in partnto Mr. Kang'swork on RDRAM. Micron,too,
thatthe destroyedmaterials.related,
.)A
continuedto destroydocumentsafter litigation commenced.For example,Micron CEO Steve

25 Appleton - who personallymet with his at competitorssuchas Hynix to discuss

26 pricing and supply

27 AppletonDepo.at234:25-235:1). SeealsoExh.6T
EyJl66(4/20101
26 (5/7/08 Appleton Depo.at 148:22- 149:19). In the end,whenfacedwith what Defendants
1634919.1
-3-
RAMBUSINC.'SBRIEFREGARDING
DEFENDANTS'
SPOLIATION
OFEVIDENCE
 I characterizeaswidespreaddestruction,Rambus'sprejudiceis clearunderDefendants'view of
2 the law andits applicationto fact becauseDefendants'"wrongdoingmakesit practically

3 impossibleto assesswhat role the missingevidencewould havehadin this action." Micron's

4 OpeningBrief RegardingImpactof theDelawareDecision,filed Mar. 10,2009("Micron

5 Opening"),
at 9:18-19.

6 To tlre extentthe Court adoptsDefendants'proposedstandardsfor spoliationand

7 sanctions,Rambusintendsto seekproportionatesanctionsfor Defendants'spoliationof evidence,

8 includingbut not limited to terminatingsanctionsstriking Defendants'answenandgranting

9 defaultjudgrnentin Rambus'sfavor,terminatingsanctionsdismissingDefendants'cross-claims,
10 and issueor evidencesanctions.Rambusalsointendsto seekadverseinferenceinstructions.and

ll to makeotherusesoftle evidenceof spoliationasdescribed

below.

t2 U. BACKGROT]NI)
l3 A. Evidence Regarding Defendants' Conspiracy And Their Anticipation of
Antitrust Litigation
t4
In 1996,lntel announcedthat its "next generation"microprocessors
would be
l5
engineeredto take advantageof Rambus'srevolutionaryDRAM technology,Direct RDRAM,
l6
to beavailablein the late1990's.Exh.5 (AppletonDepo.Exh.614).4In response
expected to
t7
technology,Hynix, Samsung,
Intel'sselectionof RDRAM asthenextmainstream andMicron
l8
on a selfdescribedcampaignof "RDRAM killing." Hynix's WorldwideVice
embarked
19
Presidentof Marketing,FarhadTabrizi, hasacknowledgedunderoaththat it washis goal to blosk
20
RDRAM from becomingthe dominantmemoryinterface. .SaeExh. 99 (7117108
Tabrizi Depo.at
2l
Mr.Tabrizihascalledthisjointeffort"RDRAMkillinC;'Idat32:3-8.
32:9-34:4).
22
Defendantsutilized a varietyof vehiclesin furtheranceof their "RDRAM killing"
ZJ
efforts. Rambusdescribeshereinjust a few examplesasrelevantto Defendants'consciousness
of
24
guilt andtheir recogrition that theirjoint efforts potentiallycould give rise to antitrustlitigation.
25
26
' As the Court ordered.the evidencesummarizedhereindoesnot constitutea fi.rll offer of proof
27
regardingDefendants'spoliationofevidence,andRambusreserves theright to makea firfl
28 presentationof Defendants'spoliationat trial. ,SeeFeb.24,2009HrgTr. at25:24-26:2.

RAMBUSINC.'S BRIEFREGARDINGDEFENDANTS'SPOLIATTON
OF EVIDENCE
 I l. The Synclink Consortium
2 It is undisputedthat a centralpurposeofthe Synclink Consortiumwasto develop

J a "united strategy"to "resisf'the Rambus-Intelpartnenhip. Exh. 6 (Dec. 1996Synclink

Amongotherthings,Mr. Tabriziusedhis positionas

MeetingMinutesat HR905_136815).

5 Synclink Chairmanto urge other DRAM manufacturers'1o pleaseeducateothersandget their

6 to say'NO TO RAMBUS AND NO TO INTEL DOMINATION.'" Exh.7 (Tabrizi

agreement
Depo.Exh.24) (Sept.1996email). Synclink alsosoughtto develop,andjointly persradeIntel

8 to choose,the Synclink DRAM (SLDRAM)in lieu of RDRAM asthe nextgeneration

9 technologv.SeeExh.8 (MaillouxDepo.Exh.404).

10 Defendantsknew that the "united shategy"they contemplatedraisedboth antitrust

1l andpatentconcems.Duringthe December1996Synclink meeting,Micronrepresentative

Terry

lz Lee opinedthat the "Consortiumneedsits own attomeyto handlepressreleases,contracts,

13 antitrustconcerns."Exh.6 (HR905_136814, (emphasis

at HR905_136816) added).Onemonth

t4 later, Mr. Lee gavea presentationraising questionssuchas:"Could the Consortiumbe usedto . . .

15 legalconcerns?"Exh. 9 (RX-0849)
challengeexistingpatents"or "addressDMM business

16 (emphasis ; Exh. 8l (6124I 03 Testimonyof T. Leear 6906: 19-21, 6906:25-6907:6,

added)

17 6921:15-6922:3,6924:20-6925:16).
Shortlythereafter,Synclinkretainedthelawfirmof

l8 TownsendandTownsendandCrew. Exh. 10(TabriziDepo.Exh.32atl). Seea/soExh. I (RX-

l9 0966at 2) (July 1997 Synclink meelingminutesstatingthat "legal feesfor May alonewere

20 $28K!).s

2l
22 5The Synclink Consortiummemberswerealsoconsidering legalactioninvolvingIntel. On
March25, 1997,Mr.Tabrizisentan emailto severalConsortiummembers(knownby thattime
z) asSLDRAM Inc.)entitled"SLAP INTEL NOWI" Mr. Tabriziwrote:
Earthto DOJ - haven't you noticedwhat Intel is up to? . . .
[Including,]refusingaccessto informationneededto build
25 competingproducts. Don't you agreethis anogantcompanyneeds
a slapupsidethe headbeforeit doesany moredamage?
26
27
28

RAMBUS INC,'S BRIEF REGARDINODEFENDANTS' SPOLIATION OF EVIDENCE

 I 2. SecretMeetings

2 In the Fall of 1998,Defendantsmet secretlyto coordinateefforts to promoteDDR

J (in lieu of SLDRAM) and discouragedesigr wins for RDRAM. See,e.g.,Exh. 19(Tabrizi Depo.

4 EyJ.732) (10/21198email from Hynix to Samsung,Microrl andotherDRAM manufacturers

5 establishinga private Intemetsite for the "MX" groupcreatedto promoteDDR); Exh. 20 (lBMl2

6 149399,producedby IBM) (email listing "noise-creatingideas"and "carefully plantedrumors" to

7 sow doubt aboutRDRAM), Thesesecretmeetingslaid the groundworkfor Defendants'

8 concertedefforts to preventRDRAM fiom becomingthe dominantmemorytechnologyin the

9 marketplace.

10 The conspiratorswereconsciousthat their actionsviolatedantitrustlaws and

1l soughtto concealevidenceoftheir misconduct.For example,in a February1998emailabout

l2 RDITAM's puported drawbacks,a Micron marketingdirectoraskedhis Hynix counterpartto

l3 "pleasevisit me if I end up in jail." Exh. 23 (6303at I ). In January1999,a consultantnamed

l4 Desi Rhodenacknowledgedthat the DRAM manufacturerswere"clearly shongertogether"than

l5 ifthey acted"individually," but he advisedthemto act underthe umbrellaofa corporationin an

l6 efforr to "[i]ndemnifu membercompaniesfrom anti-ru$" liability. Exh. 24 (6417 at3).

l7 3. Inter-DefendantCommunications

l8 As this Court is aware,both SamsungandHynix haveple.dguilty to participating

19 in a conspiracyto fix the pricesof SDRAM, DDR and (in the caseof Samsung)RDRAM at times

20 PleaAgnt); Exh. 22 (Hynix PleaAgrnt).

between1999and2002..leeExh.2l (Samsung

ZL Micron hasadmittedpublicly to participationin a conspiracyto fix DRAM prices,andits Vice

22 President PleaAgreementthat
ofSales,MichaelSadler,testifiedafterreviewingthe Samsung

z5 Micron andHynix were participantsin the conspiraryto which Samsunghadpled guilty.

24 Exh. 86 (4/25108SadlerDepo.at 65:6-67:17).In addition,asRambusdemonstratedin

25 conjunctionwith Defendants'SummaryJudgrnentmotions,the evidentiaryrecordis rife with

26 additionalexamplesof anticompetitiveconductdirectedtowardDefendants'joint goal of

27 "RDRAM killing." See,e.g.,Rambus'sSeparateStatementof FactsIn OppositionTo Samsung's

28 on Rambus'sComplaint,filed Jan.27,2009.
MotionFor SummaryJudgnr.enr

RAMBUSINC.'SBRIEFREGAR.DING
DEFENDANTS' OFEVIDENCE
SPOLIATION
 ! Defendantsknew they violatedantitrustlaws andtried to covertheir tracks. For

2 example,in September
of 2000,MicronmanagerBill Lauersentan emailto Micronsales
J managers

4
5
6 Exh. 25 (LauerDepo.Exh. 348). I\&. Lauerconfirmedunderoath that

8 Exh.78(12/19/07
LauerDepo.at77:23-
9 78:2).
l0 playedalong. Keith Weinstock
Id. at78:.7-79:1.Otler Micronexecutives

ll testifiedthat"[i]fI wassendingan email,I wouldtry to saysomething[suchas 'call for details']

t2 thatwould let theothersknowthat I hadmoreinformationthat I wasn'tputtingin. . . .'). Exh. 95
IJ (2114/08
Swanson EeealsoExh.96(2/15/08Swanson
TrialTr. at 1388:17-19). TrialTr. at

l4 1492:5-19)(testimonyof Micron executiveSteveThorsennotingthathe usedsirnilareffortsto

l5 "mask" informationrelayedin emails). AnotherMicron manager,Jeff Mailloux, circulateda

l6 confidentialHynix roadmapto othersat Micron. Exh.64 (SeibertDepo.Exh.271). lnsteadof

17 identiffing his sourceat Hynix who providedhim with theconfidentialinformation,Mr.

18 Mailloux saidthat"the roadmapfairy" left it for him. /d Similarly,in a March2001email.

l9 Hynix salesmanagerKen Hellerexplainedto his colleague

JayMcBroom:

20 Jay:

21 JustSi, pls, considerNEVER makingstatementsin emailthatyou

spokewith the competition.Lawyer'slovethesebaby's(sic). Just
22 state"l heardfrom dependablesource. . ."

2t Exh.26 (GarySwansonTrial Exhibit 98).

24 In Juneof2002,the DOJarurounced pricefixing issuesin

thatit wasinvestigating

25 the DRAM industry andissuedsubpoenas

to Samsung,Micron, aadHynix, amongothers. See,

26 e.g, Exh. 62 (PleaAgreementof Alfred.P. Censulloatrll4(a));Exh.59 (ComputerMemoryChip

27 MakersProbed,A.P. ONLINE,
June19,2002).After learningofthe subpoenqMicron account

28 managerAlfred Censullo"alteredhis handwrittennotationsin his notebooks"in an effort to

7634979.1

RAMBUS INC.'S BRIEF REGARDINGDEFENDANTS' SPOLIATION OF EVIDENCE

 I obscureentriesrelatedto "competitorpricing informatioq responsiveto the subpoena."Exh. 62

2 at !f 4(c). Upon receiptof the subpoena,Samsung,Micron, andHynix eachknew that their price
J fixing activities would give rise to criminal and/orcivil antitust litigation, and hadan undisputed
4 duty underany standud to preservedocumentsrelevantto the DOJ investigation.

5 B. EvidenceRegarding Defendants' Anticipation of Patent Litigation

6 As explainedin Rambus'sbriefing on the collateraleffect of the DelawareRuling,

7 when andwhetherthe partiesanticipatedpatent litigation is irrelevantto the instantanlitrust

8 litigation. BecauseDefendantsmakemuchof Rambus'spurportedanticipationof patent

9 litigationbasedon intemalRambusdiscussion possibilityof suchlitigation,
of thecontingent
1 0 however,it is importantto notethat beginningin 1997,Defendantslikewise werediscussing(and
1l evenwere preparingfor) patentlitigation with Rambus.The Synclink meetingminutesfrom

1 2 July 1997state:
l3 Consortiumshouldcollect informationrelevantto prior art and
t4 Rambusfilings and ?? Not an opinion,just collect materialfor all
membersto use. Dig out early minutesof Ramlink, etc. Rambuswill
l5 sue individunl companissinsteadof Consortium.Companieswill
then askGustavsonetc. for prior art info. Budgeteffort for gettingold
l6 minutesetc.collected.
t'7
Exh. I (RX-0966 at 3) (emphasisadded). During that meeting,a patentattomeyalsoled a
l8
discussionaboutlitigation andpatentprosecutionshategies,including the needto obtain"broad
l9
from using"patented
claims"in orderto "stopnonmembers technology. Id. at1.
20
actionsconlirm their recognitionofpotential patent
Defendants'contempomneous
2l
litigation with Rambusrelatednot just to SLDRAM, but alsorelatedto SDRAM and,eventually,
22
DDR SDRAM products. For example,DaveGustavsonof SCI wamedHynix in a March 1997
z)
email that Rambus'spatentswerelikely sufficiently broadto covera// synchronousDRAMs (r'.e.
24
including SDRAM and,eventually,DDR SDRAM). ,SeeExh. 13 Q292660).ln response,Hynix
25
engineersand lawyersconducteda detailedanalysisof Rambus'spatentsin the 1997time frame
26
to determinetheir scope.See,e.g.,Exh.98 (8/10/05TabriziDepo.at 139:14-l4l:.ll); Exh.97
27
(l l/10/03 Tabrizi Depo.at 42:234311). After conductingthat analysis,Hynix wassufficiently
28

RAMBUSINC.'SBRIEFREGARDING SPOLIATIONOFEVIDENCE
DEFENDANTS'
 t concernedaboutpatentinfringementlitigation that it soughtinformationin April 1998about
z patentinfringementliability insurance.SeeExh. 14(HR905_079410-079546).
Similarly,in
J wasanalyzingRambus's'327 patent.SeeExh. 15(Tr.8x.7228A).
December1996,Samsung
^

5
6
7 SeeExhs.l6 & 17(SS0013000220
andtranslation)(emphasis
added).Micron,too,
8 perceivedin April 1997thatRambusbelievedthat"changingdataon bothedgesof the clock" (a

9 technologywhichDefendants
would laterincorporate
into their DDR SDRAMdesign)was
10 "underfRambus's]patentcoverage."Exh. 58 (RX-920).As the entityintendingto infringe,
ll potentiallitigation.6By Januaryof 1998,Micronengineers
Micronthuscontemplated were
12 working "closely with legalon issuesrelatedto Intel andRambuspatentsandanti-trustissues."

l3 Exh. l8 (RX-I095at4).
l4 Defendants'concemthat Rambus"will sueindividual companies"reacheda fever

l5 pitch after Rambusfiled a patentinfringementsuit againstHitachi on January18,2000. That

l6 sameday,Hynix Vice PresidentFarhadTabrizi reportedto Hynix COO SangParkthat the

t7 Rambuslawsuit "was broughtup with Micron. andother companies,andeveryonebelievesthat

18 we cannot takethis lightly, and we haveto join together,and help Hitachi fight this to the end."

t9 on January19,2000that'DRAM companies
Er$. 2 (6522at I ). Mr. Tabrizisimilarlyasserted

20 will join forcesandfight this to the endof Rambuscompany."Exh.3 (6524at l;.7 In February
21 2000,MicronCEO SteveAppletonasserted

22 Exh.4 (SadlerDepo.Exh.548);Exh.67(517/08
AppletonDepo.at 170:15-18,
zt
' Rambus,on the otherhand,did not wantto litigate with Defendants.Instead,Rambus
was
24 focusedon ensuringthat RDRAM would havestrongmarketsuccessandit only viewedpatent
prosecution andlicensingfor non-compatible technologiessuchasSDRAMandDDR SDRAM
25 asanunlikelycontingentback-upplan.
7 During this time immediately after theHitachi suit, Rambusdid not intendto sueDefendants
zo for
patentinfringement. Instead,Rambushopedthat Defendantswould takea licensefor Rambus's
27 patentsandtherewould be no needfor litigation. It was Defendantswho knew whetherthey
plannedto sign a licenseand,thus, Defendantswerein thebestpositionto assessthe probability
28 of litigation.
7614979|

MMBUS INC.'SBRIEFRECARDING
DEFENDANTS'
SPOLIATION
OFEVIDENCE
 I 170:21-171:l).Also in Februaryof 2000,RambusandSamsung
metto discussRambuslitigation

2 and a potential licenseagreementcoveringSDR andDDR products. ,SeeExh, 27 (Tr. Ex. 4204);

.] Eyh. 94 (5123108
Steinberg
Depo.at 220:5-221
:14)
+ That samemontlLemail traffrc betweenMicron's
5 Director of DRAM Marketing,Jeff Mailloux, andMr. Tabrizi of Hynix discussed"the DDR
6 potentialpatentproblemswith respectto RDRAM." Exh.28 (I{R905}34773). Then,in July

7 2000,SamsungreceivedinformationaboutRambus'spatentsandhow Samsung's
products

8 infringedthosepatents.,SeeExh.29 (Tr. Ex. 9062);Exh.89 (9/24108

TestimonyofJay Shimat

9 417:1419:16). Meanwhile,Micron hired "a lot" of lawyers,including "multiple outsidefirms"

l0 in orderto preparefor a "preemptivestrike" againstRarnbus.Exh. 80 (2/28108Trial Testimony

1l ofT. Leeat3275:l-3276:15).
t2 Defendants
coordinated to their peroeivedthreatof
their litigationresponse

l3 Rambus'spatentinfringementlitigation. In July of2000,Hynix CEO SangParksentan emailto

t4 SteveAppleton requestinga meetingin August andstating"I had a meetingwith Geoffof

15 Rambusyesterdayand I don't havemuchtime to decidewhat we want to do with them." ^lee

16 Exh. 30 (AppletonDepo.Exh.627). AppletonandParkthenheld a face-to-face

meetingon
t'l August11.2000. Exh. 67 (517108
AppletonDepo.at 112:14-21),Two weekslater,Micron and

18 Hynix filed suits againstRambuson oppositecoasts,oneday apart. JudgeWhyterecently

t9 describedsomeofthe evidenceofthis "coordinaleddual-frontlitigation" conspiracy:

20 Micron suedRambusfor declaratoryjudgrnenton August28, 2000in
Delaware. Hynix suedRambusfor declaratoryjudgmentthe next day
2l herein SanJose.Califomia- Persuasivecircumslantialevidence
suggeststhat Micron andHynix coordinatedtheir filing ofthe
22 declaratory judgmentlawsuits.,See ConductTrial Tr. 4006:8-4008:12
(Mar. 5, 2008)(formerHynix employeeFmhadTabriziadmittingto
23 his beliefin 2000prior to litigationwith RambusthatHynix would
litigate"to theendof Rambuscompany"); 5131:1-25; 5135:l-16(Mar.
24 I 8, 2008) (testimonyof Micron CEO SteveAppletonthat he met with
Hynix penonnelin earlyAugustof2000 andthathe cancelled
25 licensingmeetingswith Rambusto suefor declaratoryjudgment);
5633:16-5634:1 (Mar.20, 2008)(testimonyfrom Hynix employee
26 D.S. ChungaboutlicensingmeetingsHynix scheduledwith Rambus,
then cancelledby suingfor declaratoryjudgment).
27
28 Inc. v. Rambus1nc.,2009WL 292205,at *5 (N.D. Cal. Feb.3, 2009).
HynixSemiconductor
7634979.t
-10-
RAMBUS INC.'S BRIEF REcARDINC DEFENDANTS' SPOLIATION OF EVIDENCE
 I JustasMicron andHynix werefinalizing their ComplaintsagainstRambusin
z August 2000, Samsungpostponedlicensingnegotiationswith Rambusbecauseit wasmonitoring
J theseevents. ,SeeExh. 3 I (Tr. Ex. 9I 00) (August2000email from Samsungto Rambusthat there

4 were"issues[that] arenot so trivial andthey aretaking longerfor us to resolveintemally than

5 expected'). Jay Shim, Samsung'sVice PresidentandGeneralPatentCounsel,hasadmittedthat
6 Samsungwas consideringthe possibilityof beingsuedby Rambusor suingRambusat this time.
Exh.89 (9/24/08Testimonyof Shimat 422:15-19).In August2000,Samsung
alsohired
8 litigationcounsel,includingDavidHealey(thenat Weil Gotshal,Samsung's
trial counselin the
9 Northem District of Califomia patentcasesandthis case)andthe Clifford Chancefirm to follow
l0 SeeExh. 100(V103(5114108
Rambuslitigationwith otherDRAM manufacturers. Donohoe
l1 Depo.at 9: I 5-23)); Exh.7I (5I | 4/ 08 DonohoeDepo.at 35:23-36:l 5, 42:1-20).

12 C. EvidenceRegardingDefendants'IleliberateDestructionof Relevant
Documents
IJ

l. EvidenceRegardingHynix's DeliberateDestructionof Relevant

t4 Documents
l5 DespiteHynix's participationin joint effortsaimedat "RDRAM killing" andits

16 concemby 1997that Rambus"will sueindividual companies,"asdescribedin SectionsII(A)-(B)

t7 above(and which, underDefendants'incorrectapproach,givesrise to a duty to prcserve

18 documentsrelevantto this litigation), Hynix took no stepsto preservepotentiallyrelevant

19 evidence.Instead,Hynix's Koreanentityhadin placea document

retentionpolicyup to May
20 to bepreserved
2000thatcalledfor documents for only oneyear. SeeExh. 33 (ShinDepo.Exh.

21 39, Hynix's QualityRecordsandConfiolProcedure).Priorto July2000,Hynix gaveno

22 insfuctions - written or verbal- to its employeesto preservedocumentsrelatedto Rambus.See

23 Exh.79 (11/16/04
Jin Ho LeeDepo.at lE4:19-185:1, Exh.76 (l/31/05SungChul
185:20-186:2);
,4 Kim Depo.at l0l:23-102:l);Exh.84 (12/7104
OlsonDepo.at223:20-224:4).
In a brieffiledin
25 the Northem District of Califomia patentlitigation, Hynix acknowledgesthat "there is no doubt

26 that valuabledocumentswerediscarded"by Hynix. Exh. 34 @eply Brief in Supportof Renewed

27 Motion to Dismiss, filed Mar. 2, 2005, at 22).

28 Among other things,Hynix desfoyed evidencethat would further establishthat

RAMBUSINC,'SBRIEFREGARDING
DEFENDANTS'
SPOLTATION
OFEVIDENCE
 I Hynix worriedaboutRambuslitigationasearlyas 1997.Forexample,the evidencewill show
z that Hynix destroyedthe patentanalysesthat Hynix conductedin responseto the March 1997
J email waming Hynix that Rambus'spatentswerelikely sufficiently broadto coverall
A
DRAMs. See,e.9.,Exh.98 (8/10/05TabriziDepo.at 139:14-141:,ll)(describing
synchronous

5 patentanalysisby Hynix patenttearn);.seaalsoExh.97 (11110/03

TabriziDepo.at 42:2343:11)

6 (same);Kim Decl..'lf 106(a).

7 Butthat is not all Hynix destroyed.Hynix's documentdestruction

in 1997was

I voluminousunderDefendants'
standards
andit containedsensitive

l0 Exh. 84 (1217/04
Olson

ll H1'nixhadno litigationhold in 1997and 1998,Rambuscannever

Depo.at 286:8-15).Because

t2 fully know whatthecompletearrayof evidencemighthaveshownaboutHynix's "RDRAM

l3 killing" efforts andits efforts to block Rambus'spatentrights and marketplacesuccess.

t4 Later in 2000,while Hynix waspreparingits plan ro launcha coordinatedattack

l5 on Rambus,meetingwith its competitors,andplanninga dual-front litigation strategy,Hynix

l6 amendedits documentretentionpolicy to removethen-existingrequirementsthat employees

17 for a specifiedperiodof time. As describedabove,from 1997throughMay

preservedocuments

l8 2000,Hynix's Koreanheadquarters to preservedocuments

hadinstructedits employees for one

19 yew. SeeExh.90(1
1/9/04ShinDepo.atll0:23-111:20);seealsoExh.33(ShinDepo.Exh.39

20 On May 5, 2000- just monthsbeforeHynix suedRambus-

2l
22 .leeExh.9l (213105
ShinDepo.at2ll:9-212:18,219:6-9,231:21-

ZJ 24).

25 id. at 227:14-229:12.231:6-233:25.

26 During discovery,

27
28 Seeid. at2ll;9-212:l; seealsoExh.90(l l/9/04 Shin
-12-
RAMBUS INC.'S BRIEFREGARDINCDEFENDANTS'SPOLIATIONOF EVIDENCE
 I Depo.at lll:22-ll4:15). However,whenfacedwith a discoveryorderrequiringproductionof

2 the detailsofthose teamlevel policies,Hynix recantedits storyandadmittedthat it did not have

3 anywrittenteamlevelpoliciesin this post-May2000timeframe.,SeeExh. 35 (AmendedSupp.

I to lntenogatoryNo. 16,whichdoesnot list or describe
Response anyteamJevelpoliciesfor the

5 periodfrom May 2000throughNovember2000);seea/soExh.36 (Hynix's counsel'sMar. 7,

6 2005Letter. statingthat Hynix teams"did not havetheir ownwritten [documentpreservation]

7 policiesprior to May 2004"). In theend,asa resultof theMay 2000revisionto the document

8 retentionpolicy, Rambuswill neverknow the extentandscopeofthe destructionofevidence

9 aboutHynix's conspiracywith its competitorsduringtherelevanttime period.

10 Hynix's destructionof Rambus-related
documentscontinuedevenafrer it srrcd,

ll Rambuson August29, 2000in theNorthem District of Califomia. For example,

t2
l3

t4 .SeeExh. 83 (l l/4/04 OlsonDepo.at I l0:25-l l2:2);seea/soExh.79 (11116104

Lee
t5 Depo.at 162:.18-163:.4 ); Exh.91
1 6 (2/3/05ShinDepo.at232:25-233:25);
Exh.37(HR905_384106
to HR905_384117,
examples
of
t7 for shredding).
invoices
l8 FarhadTabrizi. a centralfigure in Hynix"s conspiracyto "kill Rambus,"has

19 admittedthat he destroyedemailsafter Hynix suedRambus.Mr. Tabrizi tesified that!

20 Exh. 98 (8/10/05TabriziDepo.at
,See

2l 67:21-68:4). He further testified that evenafter he was instructednot to destroyRambus-related

22 deletehis emailat
anda/er Hynix suedRambus,he continuedto indiscriminately
documents
23 regularintervals. Mr. Tabrizi's profferedexcusefor violatingthe litigation hold instructionwas

24 that he supposedlythoughtthat Hynix was"backing up all the emails" andhe was "hoping that
25 theyhaveall the backups"if xheylaterneededhis emailfor thelitigation. Id. at 68:5-71:20

26 (explainingthat he continueddeletinghis email after the allegedlitigation hold inscuction

27 because"I wasthinking there'sa backuptape,sothereis a copy somewhere'). Mr. Tabrizi's

28 documentdestructionwascompotmdedwhenhe left Hynix in 2003.

RAMBUS INC.'SBRIEFREGARDINCDEFENDANTS'SPOLIATIONOF EVIDENCE

 I

2
(12/7104
OlsonDepo.at2l0:5-17);Exh.83(1
l/4/04OlsonDepo.
at38:22-39:22).
A
In addition,thereis evidencethat otherHynix witnessesdestroyeddocumentsafter

5 in 2000.
litigationcommenced

7 Exh.82 (l/19105
,See

8 MartinezDepo.at 160:13-161:3).
Similarly,Hynix Vice President
D.S.Chung,whomHynix

9 calledto testifr in theNorthemDistrictlitigation,testified:

10 E/J.68 (7129/05
ChungDepo.at75:23-76:7).
ll However,Hynix's desfiuctionof documentswas not limited to a few isolated

l2 individuals.For instance,on June28, 2002,Hynix destooyed

550boxesof documents.See

13 Exh.84 (1217104 Exhs.60 & 61 (OlsonDepo.Exhs.19&20),

OlsonDepo.at260:6-262:15);

t4 Remarkably, just two weeksafterthe DOJ servedHynix with a

happened
this destruction

l5 subpoenafor documentsrelatedto its conspiracyto fix prices. SeeExh. 59 (ComputerMemory

16 ChipMakersProbed,A.P. ONttttt,I:urlle (which,
19,2002).Eventhoughthis destruction

t7 accordingto Defendants,shouldbe considered"massive")took placeafier Hynix receivedits

t8 subpoenafrom the DOJ,

19 SeeExh.83(11/4104
OlsonDepo.
20 at 61:19-63:13).Nor did Hynix otherwisemaintaina list of the contentsof the550boxesof
2l documentsit destroyedduring the Summerof2002, so Rambuswill neverknow what volume of

22 materialrelatedto the claimsin this litigation.Seeid. at 64:10-21

.

ZJ 2. EvidenceThat Hynix Offered Falseand IncompleteDiscovery

.A
ResponsesIn An Effort To CoverUp lts DocumentDestruction,
Hynix hasbeenlessthan forthcomingaboutits documentretentionpoliciesand
25
practices.In 2001,Rambusservedits FirstSetof Requests
for Productionon Hynix in the
26
thatHynix produce"[a]ll
NorthemDistrictof Califomialitigation. Therein,Rambusrequested
27
documentsrelating to [Hynix's] documentretentionor destructionpoliciesor procedurefrom
28
-t4-
DEFENDANTS'
RAMBUSTNC.'SBzuEFRECARDING SPOLIANONOFEVIDENCE
 I 1990to the present." Exh. 38 (Requestfor ProductionNo. 59). Hynix objectedbur agreedto

2 produceall non-privilegeddocuments.Hynix limitedits productionto ten"documentretention

5 policies(applicableat varioustimesandto variousactivities)."Exh. 39 (7/7/03letter).

4 On July 3, 2003,Hynix producedCarl M. Durham,Jr., generalcounselfor Hynix

5 SemiconductorAmeric4 asthe corporatedesigneeon "any policies or practiceswithin Hynix

6 relatingto the storageand/orretentionofdocumentsincludingemailand/orelectronicdataback-

7 up policiesandpracticesbetween1990andthepresent."However,afterhis deposition,
the
8 DiscoveryMasterfound that Mr. Durhamwascompletely'lrnpreparedandunqualified"to testi$

9 aboutthe policies andpracticesof the four Hynix entitiesrelatingto the storageandretentionof

l0 documents.Exh.40 (10/17104
OrderGrantingRambus'sMotionto CompelProductionof
ll Documentsand30OX6)DepositionRe: Hynix's DocumentRetentionPoliciesat 6:14).

12 In Hynix's nine yearsof litigation with Rambus,Hynix's story regardingits

IJ documentpreservation
practiceshasbeenever-changing
andevolving.
l4 . tnitially, Hynix led Rambusto believethat Hynix America hada written

l5 docunentretentionpolicy. ,SeeExh. 39 (July 7, 2003 letter from Ted Brown

16 to Truc-LinhNguyen(listingHynix Americadocumentretentionpolicy)).
17 Later,afterit hadaccusedRambusofspoliationandput Rambus'sdocument
l8 retentionpoliciesundera microscope,Hynix changedits story andsaidthat

l9 theHynix Americapolicy wasmerelya draftthathadneverbeenadopted.

20 SeeExh.83 (11/4/04OlsonDepo.at l9:6-18);seealsoExh.35(Amended

2l to IntenogatoryNo. 16at l0 ("From 1997to thepresent,

Supp.Response

22 HSA hasnot had or adoptedany written,company-widedocumentretention

z3 policy.")).

24 Initially,Hynix's 30(b)(6)witresstestifiedthat
?<

26 SeeExh. 72 (713/ 03 DurhamDepo.at 40:2I 4. | :6,42:4-8,42:2243:2).

27 Then,afteraccusingRambusofspoliation,Hynix offereda new30(b)(6)
28

RAMBUS INC.'SBRIEFREGARDINGDEFENDANTS'SPOLIATIONOF EVIDENCE

 I ,SeeExh. 83 (lll4l04 OlsonDepo.at
L 126:.12-127:9)

3
4 3. EvidenceRegardingSamsung'sDeliberateDestructionof
RelevantDocuments
5
Notwithstanding participationin Defendants'conspiracyand
Samsung's
6
discussionof potentialpatentlitigationasdescribedabove(which,underDefendants'incorrect
7
assertionsoflaw andfac! gives rise to a duty to preservedocumentsrelevantto this litigation),
8
Samsungtook no stepsto preservepotentiallyrelevantevidenceuntil June2005at the earliest.
9
claimsthatit put a litigationhold in placefor Rambus-related
Samsung documents
in June2005,
l0
but not earlier.,SeaExh. 102(VI08 (7/28/08J.S.ParkDepo.at25:22-27:13)
(Samsung's
ll
30(bX6) designeetestiryingthat Samsungtook no actionprior to June2005'to retainor preserve
t2
relatedto actualor potentiallitigationwith Rambus");Exh.4l (Tr. Ex. 9339(list of
documents
l3
recipientsof litigationhold noticesat Samsung)).
l4
Any litigation hold Samsungdid put in placewas not comprehensive.For
15
example,oneofthe individualswho neverreceiveda litigationhold for documents
relatedto
16
actual or potentiallitigation with Rambus(evenafter this litigation began)is Jon Kang,the
17
Presidentof SamsungSemiconductor
lnc..the U.S.-based
Samsung in this action.
defendant
l8
From 1995to 2000,Mr. KangservedasSamsung's
SeniorVice President
ofoperations. He
l9
servedasSeniorVice Presidentof MemoryProductPlanningof Samsung the parent
Electronics,
20
corporationin Kore4 from 2000to 2004. Exh.73 (6/19/08KangDepo.at l0: I - I I :4). He was
2l
involved in marketingRDRAM, andhe attendedquarterlyexecutivemeetingsbetweenSamsung
22
andRambusexecutivesregardingRDRAM. Id. (6/19108
KangDepo.at 65:4-12).Despite
z3
Mr. Kang'srole in Samsung's
effortsto marketRDRAM,which Samsung
hasstatedis critical
evidenceto its defense,Mr. Kang did not receiveany litigation hold notice for Rambus-related
documents.,SeeExh.4l (Tr. Ex. 9339).EIfhe did receivesucha notice(whichSamsung's
26
27 8Mr. Kang hastestified that he communicatedby e-mail regardingRambus-related
business.,See
28 Exh. l0l (V104 (6/19/08KangDepo.at2ll:22-25)).
7634919.t
_16_
RAMBUSINC.'SBRIEFREGARDING
DEFENDANTS'
SPOLIATIONOFEVIDENCE
 1 30OX6) designeeindicateshe did not), he did not pay anyattentionto its instructions. .See
2 Exh. l0l (V104 (6/19/08KangDepo.at208:2-12))(testiffingthathe receiveda litigationhold
J noticebut "didn't pay much attention"to it). In fact, Mr. Kangtestified that he continuedto do a
4 ("WheneverIhave-the
regular"garbageflush" of his writtenmaterials.Id. at207:12-208:1

5 drawergetsfilled up,thenI do a garbageflushofpaperwork[.]").

6 Similarly, four Samsungexecutives(SunWoo Lee. Young Woo Lee,Tom Quinn,
and Yong Hwan Park)who pled gurlty to participatingin a price fixing conspiracywith respectto

I DRAMs werenot amongthe Samsung

employees
who everreceiveda litigationholdnotice

9 relatedto actualor potentiallitigationwith Rambus.SeeExh.41 (Tr. Ex. 9339). Eachofthese

l0 individualshadresponsibilities and/ordecidingSamsung'sDRAM prices,and
for recommending

ll eachsommunicatedwith representatives
of other DRAM manufacturersaboutDRAM prices.
12 SeeExh.42 @leaAgreementof Y.W. Leet| 4); Exh.43 (PleaAgreementof Y.H. Parkfl 4);
13 Exh.44 (PleaAgreementof S.W.Leefl 4); Exh. 45 @leaAgreementof Quinn!f 4).e
t4 With no litigationholdin placebeforeJune2005,Samsungautomatically

l5 e-mailsup to at leastJune2005on anongoingbasis..See,

destroyed e.g.,Erh. 89 (9124/08

16 Testimonyof Jay Shimat 389:13-24)(Mr. Shimtestifuingthat Samsung

has"a systemin place
17 thatwouldkeepsomeof thesefilesbut automaticallyerasesomeoftheseotherfiles"); Exh. 101

l8 (V104(6/19/08Depo.of JonKangat 210:3-9))(e-mail"automatically

erasesaftera certaintime
l9 offof my computer");Exh.46 (330042000197 (9/3/03testimonyof
at65:8-20,68:6-21)

20 corporatedesignee
Samsung's statingthat

2l Exh.47(S500420016s4)
z2 Similarly,employees
23 (like Mr. Kang's"garbageflush" describedabove)to get
continuedto do regularhousekeeping
z+
9 In addition,Samsungdid not give instructionsto preservedocumentsto otherswho were
25
involvedin the processof decidingSamsung's RDRAM pricesin the 2000to 2002time period,
26 includingY.W. Lee,President of the Semiconductor Divisionof SamsungElectronicsCo. Ltd.;
Young BaeRha, SeniorVice Presidentin chargeof salesandmarketingglobally; HJ Kim,
Presidentof SSI in 2000; Dieter Mackowiak,SeniorVice Presidentof SalesandMarketing;and
SeanCronin,Samsung's accountmanagerat Dell in 2000.SeeExh.4l (Tr. Ex. 9339)(doesnot
28 includeindividualslistedabove).
1634919.1

RAMBUS INC.'SBRIEFREGARDINCDEFENDANTS'SPOLIATIONOF EVIDENCE

 1 rid of unwanteddocuments.See,e.g,,Eldr.77(8/23/07KyungDepo.at22:'12-19,22:22-23:4)

2 (describingregularhousecleaning
process,resultingin destructionof notebooks).

3 Indeed the regulardestructionof documentsis consistentwith Samsung's

4 documentretentionpolicies. In 2006,after this litigation hadalreadycommenced,Samsung

5 ElechonicsAmerica ("SEA") adopteda documentretentionpolicy that required employees.

6 amongotherthings,to cleanout anddestroydocuments"[a]t leastsemiarmually."Exh. 48 (Tr.

Ex,9221). Semi-annualdestrustionof documentsis still mandatoryunder SEA's current

8 documentretentionpolicy, which expresslyacknowledgesthat its purposeis to destroyotherwise

9 documents.ro
discoverable Exh.49 CIr. Ex.9222at 4).
l0 The evidenceat trial will showtha! asa resultof the failure to implementa

ll litigation hold, Samsungdestroyedrelevantevidence,including communicationswith other

t2 DRAM manufacturenregardingtheir coordinatedrefusalto meetOEMs' demandsfor lower

l3 priceson RDRAM. For example,theevidenceat hial will showthat Samsungfailed to produce

l4 the March I , 2001email from SamsrmgVice PresidentIl Ung Kim (who went to prison for price
l5 fixing) to his counterpartat ToshibaaboutSamsung'srefiisal to meetDell's demandsfor sharper

16 declinesin RDRAM pricing. Mr. Kim urgedToshibato "hangin there"and"give samepricing"

17
l0 Commonlyacceptedreasonsfor adoptionandimplementationof content-neutraldocument
l8
retentionpolicies includethe reductionofthe high costsof complyingwith discoveryrequestsin
t9 the eventa businessshouldbecomeinvolved in litigation, by limiting the extentof paperrecords
andelectronicdatathat would haveto be searchedfor discoverablematerials. However"because
20 Defendantspurport to find somethingnefariousin the adoptionof Rambus'sdocumentretention
policy andin statementsby Rambuspersonnelthat the company'sdocumentretentionprogram
2l extendedto "discoverable"documents(althougheventhe DelawareCourt did not), it is worth
noting that SEA's currentdocumentretentionpolicy explicitly acknowledgesthe tie betweeq on
22 the onehand,the needto destroymaterial"that eitherhasno valueto SEA or whosepresewation
is not requiredby law", Exh. al 1tr. Ox. 9222at3) (Underlying Principles"!] l), ani, on the
23 otherhand,concemsaboutthe potentialdiscoverabilityof documents:
The law may not distinguishbetween"personal"work files and SEA's "corporate"
24 or "business"files, As sucll "personalfiles" containingbusiness-or work-related
information may be subjectto discoveryin a legal proceeding,just like other
25 corporateor businessrecords.Therefore,calendars,diaries,notes,and
chrbnologicalfies, in electronicandpa1ierforms, of firm personnelaretypically
26 consideredo'information"or "records"coveredby this Policy. Eachemployee
should,at leasttwice annually,review his "personalfiles" and disposeof any
27 information or recordsfor which the retentionperiodhaspassed.
28 Id. (SEA Januaryl, 2008 documentretentionpolicy provision for "Personalfiles').
16v9n.l

RAMBUSINC.'SBRIEFREGARDING
DEFENDANTS'
SPOLTATION
OFEVIDENCE
 I as Samsung"even if they threten(sic) you badly." Exh. 50 (TAEC-RMBS-v-MU2569). The
2 only reasonRambusleamedof the documentis becauseToshibaproduceda copy during
-) discovery.Kim Decl.,!f 104(a).
4 Likewise,the evidenceat trial will showthat Samsungdestroyeddocuments

5 regardingcommunicationsandmeetingswith otherDRAM manufacturersabouttheir internal

6 projectionsofRDRAM pricingandproduction.,lee,e.g.,Exh.5l 0TAG-00263188,

producedby

Infineon) (7/5100emul from Samsungto Infineonrequestingmarketingmeetingwith proposed

8 agendaincluding "[d]emandforecas by applications,Rambus/DDR./PC

I 33" and"[p]roduct

9 [r]oadmap");Exh. 52 (ITAG-003033228)
(lnfineonsummaryof meetingwith Samsung).The

l0 evidencewill alsoshowthat SamsungdestroyeddocumentsregardingDefendants'secre!

1l coordinatedeffortstopromoteDDRwhilefashingRDRAM,
See,e.g.,Exh.20(18M12149399,
tz producedby IBM) (listing "noisecreatingideas"and"carefi.rllyplantedrumors" aboutRDRAM.

t3 Kim Decl.,fl 104(b-c).

14 4. The Scopeof Samsung'sDestructionIs RevealedBy The District

Court of New Jersey'sFinding That Samsung'sDRAM Group
l5 Intentionally DestroyedEmails.
l6 The scopeof Samsung'sdocumentdestructionis describedin Mosaid Techs.Inc.

l7 v. SamsungElectronicsCo.,Ltd., et al., CaseNo. 0l-CV4340. In that case,Mosaidsued

l8 Samsungin the Dishict of New Jerseyfor infringementof sevenpatentsinvolving DRAMs and

l9 DRAM technology. During the courseofdiscovery, MagishateJudgeHedgesfound that

20 Samsunghad committed"breathtakingandabsolute"spoliation,resultingin Samsung'scomplete

2l failure to produceemailsto Mosaid. Mosaid Techs.Inc. v. SamsungElectronicsCo.,Ltd.,2004

22 WL 2550306,at *3 @.N.J:July 7,2004). He foundthat",?otechnicale-mailswerepresemed,

ZJ andthat no 'off-switch' [to Samsung'sretention]policy existed demonstrat[ing],at the least
24 extremelyrecklessbehayior." Id. (emphasisadded). MagistrateJudgeHedgesalsofound that

25 "[t]he prejudiceresulting ftom completeand total e-mail spoliation seemsparticularlyobvious."

26 Id. at*2 (emphasis
added).

27 Mosaid hadsubmittedan affidavit by a former Samsungmemorydesignerwho

28 testified directly to'"the extensiveandtechnicaluseof e-mail" at Samsung./d. The affiant stated

7$49n,1

RAMBUSINC.'SBRIEPREGARDING
DEFENDANTS'SPOLIATION
OFEVIDENCE
 I that "email wascommonlyusedeveryday''by Samsungmemorychip designersby 1995.
2 Among otheruses,email wasregularlyusedby Samsungengineersto shareinformationand

3 ideas(suchaspresentations,testresults,etc.)during the developmentofmemory produots;to

4 communicatewith other engineersregardingthe stafusof memoryproductdevelopmentand

5 manufactue;to distributestatusreports,meetingminutes,andtestresultsregardingthe operation

6 of memoryproducts;and to communicatewith customersaboutspecificproductneeds.Exh. 54

(550042001361,
at 550042001362).
In light ofthe evidenceofthe e-mails'relevance,
the
8 Magishatefoundthat,"in additionto defendants'
effectiveconcession
ofabsolutespoliationof

9 technicale-mails,which is enoughto supportan inference,plaintiff has madeaprimafacie

l0 showingof relevance."Mosaid,2004WL 2550306,at*2. As a resul! theMagistrategranted
il Mosaid's requestfor an adverseinferenceinstruction. Id. at *3. The Magistratealsoawarded

t2 in feesandcostsassociated
$566,839.97 with Mosaid'smotionfor sanctions.MosaidTechs.Inc.

l3 ElectronicsCo. Ltd,348 F. Supp.2d,332,334(D.N.J.2004).

v. Samsung

t4 Samsungappealedthe Magistrate'sorders,but the district court found that the

l5 sanctionswereboth "appropriateandfair" giventhe "staggering"extentof Samsung'sspoliation

l6 2001until late2004. Id. at339. The district

from theinceptionofthe litigationin September
t7 courtfoundthat"Samsungneverplaceda 'litigationhold' or 'offswitch' on its document

l8 retentionpolicy concemingemail"andthatSamsung's
emailpolicy allowedemailsto bedeleted

l9 automaticallyon a rolling basis. Id. at333. 'oAsa resull Samsungfailed to producea single
tn technicale-mail in this highly technicalpatentlitigation becausenonehad beenpresemed." Id.

21 (emphasisadded). The court fudher foundthat "Samsung'sactionsgo far beyondmere

22 negligence,demonstratinglz owingand intentionalconductthat led to the nonproductionof all

23 technicale-mails."/d at 338(emphasis
added).

24 5. EvidenceRegardingMicron's DeliberateDestructionof Relevant

Documents
25
DespiteMicron'sparticipationin the conspiracy
againstRambusandRDRAM, its
26
andits initiation of patentlitigation againstRambusas
concemaboutthe antitrust consequences,
27
discussedin SecfionII(A)-(B) above,Micron witnesseshavetestified that they desfoyed, altered,
28

DEFENDANTS'
RAMBUSINC.'SBRIEFREGARDING SPOLIATIONOFEVIDENCE
 I or failed to retain relevantdocumentslong after a preservationduty attachedunderDefendants'
2 approach,including in manycaseslong after Micron hadcommencedlitigation with Rambus.
J For example,asof May 2001,Micron did not arshiveits emails.
4 Exh.92 $/2101JulieSmithDeno.at
) 5:3-6:15,
71:14-73:25).
S""o/- !*hj11Z]1/09!.ith Depo.
at7:ll-12,8:2-5).
Il
6 Fld:..93(2/14/06SmithDepo.at 53:8-
7 53:25,54:21-55:13,74:5-l 4).
8 Id. at69:25-72:9.
o Criticalwitnesses
acknowledged of emailsrelatingto Rambus
theirdestruction
10 and/orpricingdiscussions
with competitors,
evenafterMicronsuedRambus.Examplesinclude:
ll . SteveAppleton: Micron CEOSteveAppletontestifiedin April 2001- after

l2 Micron initiatedlitigationagainstRambus-
IJ

t4 E,h. 66 (4120/01
AppletonDepo.at
l5 234:25-235:l). See alsoE h. 67 (5/7/08AppletonDepo.at 148:22-149
:19).
l6
l7

18 ,SeeExh.55 (RadfordDepo.Exh. 216);Exh. 85 (10/10/07

19 Radford
Depo.at 133:16-135:12).
zv MikeSeibert: Mike Seibert,Micron'sMarketingEnablingManagerwith

2l responsibilityfor promotingDDR overRDRAM asthe next industrystandard,

22 testihedthat
ZJ

24 Exh. 87 (8/3/01SeibertDepo.at 12:20-13:10,

16:l-9, 52:14-
25 53:I 0). Seea/soExh.88 ( I 0/30/07Seibert
Depo.at 30:3-8,54:I 6-55:I l, 58:4-
26 24) (describingMr. Seibert'sresponsibilities).
27 o Kyle Daniels.'MicronexecutiveKyle Daniels,Micron'smarketingmanager

28 for memorymodulesduring the relevantperiod,testified in July 2001that I

7634979.l

RAMBUSINC.'SBzuEFREGARDING
DEFENDANTS'
SPOLIATIONOFEVIDENCE
 I
)

J Eldl..69 (7/31/01 DanielsDepo.at 9:4-9,25:17-27:19).

4 The evidenceat trial will showthat Micron deshoyedrelevantevidence,including

5 RDRAM demand(see,e.g.,Exh.63
with OEMs,suchasDell, demonstrating
communications
6 (DEL-RAMB 0l 8056producedby Dell). Theevidenceat trial will alsoshowthatMicron

7 destroyeddocumentsregardingDefendants'secret,coordinatedefforts to kill RDRAM and

I promoteDDR. See,e.9.,Exh.30 (FIR905_387986,

producedby Hynix) (7/24100
Appleton-Park

9 emaildiscussing"what we wantto do with [Rambus]");Exh.53 (ITAG-00259310,

producedby

l0 Infineon)Qn2/99 emailfrom Mr. TabriziregardingHSDRAMagenda);Exh.20 (lBW2 149399,

l1 producedby IBM) (10/19/98emaillisting"noisecreatingideas"and"carefullyplantedrumors"

t2 aboutRDRAM).
IJ il. ARGUMENT
l4 As the abovesummarydemonstrates,
the evidenceshowsDefendantsdestroyed

l5 documentsrelating to the parties' claimsanddefensesin this case(evenwithout resortto the

t6 improperpresumptions seekto employ). As explainedin Rambus'sbriefingon the

Defendants

t7 collateraleffect of the DelawareRuling, Defendants'proposedstandardsfor spoliationare

l8 inconect. So aretheir methodsof drawinginferencesfrom the facts. However,if the Coud were

t9 to adoptDefendants'proposedapproach,
theCourtwouldneedto find thateachofthe
20 Defendantsengagedin intentionalspoliationresultingin sufficientprejudiceto Rambusto

21 warrantterminatingor issuesanctionsor adverseinferenceinstructions.

22 A. Under Defendants'Proposed@ut Inappropriate)ApproachTo The Duty

To PreserveDocuments.DefendantsHad A Dutv To Presene Relevant
zt EvidenceSinceAt Least1997
24 Defendantsassertthat a duty to preservedocumentsthrougha litigation hold arises

25 when litigation involving ary causeof actionis "reasonablyforeseeable"and a partytherefore

26 "knew, or shouldhaveknown, that a generalimplementationof [its documentretention]policy

27 at 5, 8-9; Micron Replyat I:7-8, 3:16-18("Spoliationdoes
wasinappropriate,"Micron Response

28 Replyat 2:2-3(same).
not requireanticipationofa specificcauseofaction...."); Samsung
7634979.1

RAMBUS INC.'SBRIEFREGARDINGDEFENDANTS'SPOLIANONOF EVIDENCE

 I Defendants'proposedstandardis contraryto California law, which will not find a duty to

2 preservedocumentsunlesslitigation is "ongoing or clemlyforeseeable. . . involving claims

similar [to thoseat issuein the presentsuit]." Willmdv. Caterpillar,40Cal.App. 4th 892,922-
4 23 (1995)(emphasis generallyRambus
added);see Replyat 2:6-3:14.Moreover,Defendants'
5 argumenttries to extendeventhe "reasonablyforeseeable"standardbeyondrecognitionto
6 encompassa meregeneralizedpossibility of any futwe litigation.

7 If the Court were to adoptDefendants'approach,the Court shouldfind that each

8 of Defendantshad a duty to preserverelevantdocumentssinceat least 1997. By this time,

9 Defendantshad alreadycometogetherwith other DRAM manufacturersto resistthe
l0 Rambus/lntelpartrrershipand spread'tarefully plantedrumors" aboutRDRAM, Exh. 20 (IBN{/2

1l 149399).Defendantswere awarethat their misconductviolated antitrustlaws.rr lndeed,in

12 preparationfor potentiallitigation, Defendantsretainedlawyersto 'ohandle"variousissues,

IJ Exlt.6 (HR905_136816),
including"antitrustconcems,oo anddeveloped
a coordinated
litigation
t4 strategyagainstRambusthat includedpatentand antitrustclaims. Seesupra, SectionsII(A)-(B).
l5 Upon receiptof the June2002 DOJ subpoenas,
Hynix, Micron, and Samsungwere certainly

16 obligatedto preservedocumentsrelevantto that investigationandto clearly foreseeablelitigation

t7 relatedto the sameconspiracy,accordingto any duty standard.

l8 Under Defendants'overly expansiveview ofthe preservationstandard,a duty to

l9 preservedocumentsrelatedto this litigation alsoarosewhenDefendantsrecognizedandprepared

20 for potential sepratepatent litigation with Rambus.By at leastJuJy1997, Defendantswere

21 awareofthe broadscopeof Rambus'sintellectualpropertyanddiscussed

their beliefthat

22 "Rambuswill sueindividualcompanies."Exh. I (RX-0966at 3), Synclink members,

including

23 Defendants,wereaskedto gathercritical "information relevantto prior art andRambusfilings" in

24 preparationfor litigation. .ld (emphasisadded). Defendants'duty to prcservedocumentsunder

25
26 " See,e.9.,Exh.23 (6303at l) ("[P]leasevisit me if I endup in jail."); Exh.24 (6417at3)
(January1999presentationadvisingthat the DRAM manufacturers act underthe umbrellaof a
27 corporationin an effort to "[i]ndemni$ membercompaniesfrom a4!i:quq{&bil!ty. Seealso
Exh. 25 (LauerDepo.Exh. l4t; (Sept6mber2000emlailregardingI Exh. 78
28 (l 2| 19/07 La;ur;rD epo.at 77:23-78:2,78:7-79:1).
76v979.1

RAMBUSINC.'SBRIEFRECARDING
DEFENDANTS'
SPOLIATION
OFEVIDENCE
 I Defendants'approachthenbecameclearerin the summerof 2000when Micron andHynix sued
2 Rambusaspan ofa coordinated
dual-frontlitigationstrategy.SeeHynix,2009WL292205at
J
r.5.12

4 B. Under Defendants'Proposed@ut Inappropriate)Approach To

SpoliationnDefendantsIntentionallyDestroyedDocumentsIn
5 Anticipation of Litigation
6 If the Court wereto adoptDefendants'proposedapproachto spoliation,then it

7 shouldfind thatDefendants
intentionallydestroyed
documents.
8 As explainedabove,despitethefactthatit wasanticipatinglitigation(underits

9 approachto thedutyissue),Hynix undertookno effortsin 1997or 1998to preserve

erroneous

t0 potentiallyrelevantevidenceandinstead in wholesaledocumentandemail destruction.

ll Further,Hynix
t2
IJ .9eeExh.9l (213/05ShinDepo.at2ll:9-212:18,219:6-9,231:21-24).

t4
l5 Exh.79(11116104
,See
l6 JinHo LeeDepo.at 184:19-185:1, Exh.76(l/31/05SungChulKim Depo.at
185:20-186:2);
t7 l0l:23-102:l);Exh.84(12/7104
OlsonDepo.at223:20-224:4).
Forexample,

l8
19 SeeExhs.60& 61 (OlsonDepo.
Exhs.19& 20); Exh.84 (1217/04
OlsonDepo.at260:6-262:15).UnderDefendants'
erroneous

21 approach,Hynix knew or shouldhaveknown that the documentsdestroyedwerepotentially

22 relevantto antitrustlitisation.

ZJ
'' With respectto Samsung,Rambuscontends,asit did in the recentuncleanhandstrial in the
21
NorthernDistric! that insuffrcientanticipationof patentlitigation with Samsungeverexistedto
25 give rise to a duty to preserve,andthat in any eventthe October2000 licenseagreementbetween
Rambusand Samsungextinguishedany duty that previouslyexisted. Samsungdisagreed,
26 arguingthat the possibility that Rambuscould,at somehlpothetical time yearslater,terminate
the licensewas sufficient to imposea continuingduty. Samsungis wrong, but if its standarddid
27 apply,thenit hada continuingduty to preserve.Samsung's hiring of litigationcounselandclose
monitoring of Rambuslitigation evidencesthat it actuallycontemplatedthe potentialfor future
28 patentlitigation with Rambus.
163/.979.1

RAMBUS INC.'S BRIEFREGARDINGDEFENDANTS'SPOLIATIONOF EVIDENCE

 I UnderDefendants'spoliationapproach,Samsungalsointentionallydestroyed

2 documentsin anticipationof litigation. Samsungfailed to implementany litigation hold for

J documentsuntil June2005at the earliest- well after it hired litigation counselto
Rambus-relaled
4 by the DOJ- resultingin the delibemte
monitor Rambuslitigation and afterit wassubpoenaed

5 destructionof relevantdocuments.In addition,accordingto Defendants'proposedbut inconect

6 standardon collateralestoppel,the Courtwould needto find thal theMosaid spoliationorder
conclusivelyestablishesfor purposesof ry'rislirigation that Samsungintentionallydestroyed

8 evidencein anticipationof litigation. TheNew JerseyDistrictCourtfoundthat"Samsung's

9 actionsgo far beyondmerenegligence,demonstratingln owingand intentionolconductIhat led

l0 of all technicale-mails." CompareMosaid,348F. Supp.2d at339

to thenonproduction
1l (emphasis at l :8-l0 ('JudgeRobinson'sfactualfindings
added),with Micron Response

t2 conclusivelyestablishthat Ramousintentionallydestroyeddocumentsin anticipationof

IJ OpeningBrief, filed Mar. 10,2009,at 6:l5-16 ("Samsung
litigation.");Samsung's is entitledto

14 relief purely basedon findings in the [Delaware]Opinion").

l5 Micron also intentionallydestroyeddocumentsunderDefendants'spoliation

16 havetestifiedthattheydeshoyed,altered,or failedto
approach.NumerousMicronwitnesses
t7 retainrelevantdocumentswell after Micron's duty to preservearoseunderDefendants'approach,
l8 includingafterlitigationwith Rambushadcommenced,1ee,e.g.,Exh.66 (4/20101
Appleton

t9 (testifying
Depo.at234:25-235:l) in April 2001

20
2l generallysupra,SectionII(C)(5),
'))
C, Under Defendants'Proposed@ut Inappropriate)Approach To
Spoliation,Defendants'SpoliationOf EvidencePrejudicedRambus
23
Thepartiesagreethatthe Courtmustimposea burden-shifting
approachin

determiningthe existenceanddegreeofprejudice, althoughthey disagreeaboutthe

25
implementationof that approach,The partiesagreethat underCalifomia law, the moving party
26
mustmakeaprima facie showingthat the respondingparty destroyeddocumentsthat had "a
77
substantialprobability of damagingthe moving party's ability to establishan essentialelementof
28
-25-
R.AMBUSINC.'S BRIEF REGARDING DEFENDANTS' SPOLIATION OF EVIDENCE
 I Cal.App. 4th 1215,1227(2008), If this
[their] claim[s]or defense[s]."Wliams v. Russ,167
2 burdenis met, the burdenshiffs to the respondingpartyto showthat the documentsavailableto
J the moving party aresuffrcientfor it to t'mountan adequatedefense." Id. at 1227n.5.
4 Defendantssuggesthoweveqthat the destructionof documentsis sufficien! by itself, to meetthe

5 aprimafacie caseof preludice.,Seqe.g.,Micron Openingat 10:10-12;

burdenand establish

6 Micron Reply at 7:2-4. This is not conect. Moreover,Defendantssuggestthat a party cannever

7 rcbuta prima facie caseofprejudice unlessit kepta written recordof the substanceof the
8 documentsthat weredestroyedor can otherwisereconstructall that was destroyed,which is also
9 not correct.See,e.9.,MicronOpeningat 9:18-19.If theCourtwereto adoptDefendants'
l0 proposedbut erroneousstandardfor prejudice,thenthe Court shouldfind that Defendants'

lt spoliationof evidenceprejudicedRambus.

12 As explainedin SectionII above,Defendants'spoliation waspart ofa larger

13 coordinatedconspiracyagainstRambustlat beganto form asearly as 1997to preventRDRAM

l4 from becomingtle dominantmemorytechnology.UnderDefendants'approach,the destruction

l5 of documentswasso widespreadthat it wasnot limited to specificcategoriesof documents,but

l6 ratherinvolved "all aspects"of Defendants'businessoperations.Defendantskept no written

lt recordof what was destroyed.While it is impossibleto know every.thingthat Defendants

l8 destroyed,the evidenceat trial will showthat the spoliatedevidenceincludeddocumentssuchas
t9 (l) documentsrelatingto communicationsamongandmeetingsbetweenDefendants;

20 (2) documentsrelatingto the activities of the Synclink Consortiumand similar organizations;

2l (3) documentsrelatingto Defendants'concertedeffofts to promoteDDR; (4) documentsrelating

22 to meetingswith Rambusand/orIntel; (5) documentsrelatingto communicationswith OEMs

z) and/orother DRAM supplien; (6) documentsrelatingto theperformanceandcostof RDRAM;
24 (7) financial documents;(8) documentsrelatedto Defendants'coordinateddual-frontlitigation

25 strategy;and (9) internal emails.

26 The evidenceat trial will demonstatethat the destroyeddocumentswould be

27 relevantto issuesin this case,including, but not limited to, the following:
28
-26-
RAMBUSINC.'SBRIEFREGARDING SPOLIATIONOFEVIDENCE
DEFENDANTS'
 o
t . CommunicationsamongDefendantsandotherDRAM suppliersregardingthe
pricingandproductionof RDRAM;

. The scopeofthe pricefixing conspiracy pled

to whichHynix andSamsung
guilty andin which Micron admittedlyparticipated;

. CommunicationsbetweenDefendantsandOEMs regardingRDRAM pricing

5 and pricing projections,the productionof RDRAM, andthe coststo
manufactureRDRAM;
6
r Defendants'
artificialrestrictionof theproductionof RDRAM, including
7
Defendants'
coordinated refusalto meetOEMs' demandfor RDRAM;
8
r Defendants'
purportedeffortsto developandpromotealtemativesto RDRAM;
9
r Defendants'intentionalinterferencewith Rambus'sbusinessrelationshipswith
l0 Intel andothercompanies;
l1 . Thecostof producingandperformance
of RDRAM, SDRAM,andDDR;
12 . Projectionsof RDRAM's future marketpenetrationandpricing; and
l3
r purportedeffortsto developandpromoteRDRAM.
Defendants'
1A

Unlike the categoriesof materialsthat Defendantshavewrongly allegedRambus

l5
failedto preserve,onewouldexpectto find thebestevidence
for theabovecategories
in
16
Defendants'frles. For example,evidencerelatingto issuessuchascommrurications
among
t7
Defendantswould only comefrom Defendants'files. The evidencewill showthat a numberof
l8
Hynix, Samsung,and Micron executives,who were directly involvedwith Rambusor RDRAM,
l9
and/orcommunicatedwith competitors,werenot properlypreservingrelevantemails.
20
Hynix did not properlypreserveits email with competitorsduring the relevant
2l
time period. For instance,Hynix's FarhadTabrizitestifiedthat
22
Exh.98 (8/10/05TabriziDepo.at
,See
z)
67:21-68:4).Then,whenMr. Tabrizileft Hynix in 2003,the
24
25
SeeExh. 84 (1217104
OlsonDepo.at210:5-17);Exh. 83 (11/4/04OlsonDepo.at
26
38:22-39:22).Therefore,it is not surprisingthat Mr. Tabrizi's emailssentto Hynix's co-
27
conspiratorswere, most likely, destroyed.For instance,Rambus'sreview of Infineon's document
28
7634979.l

RAMBUSINC.'SBRIEFREGARDING
DEFENDANTS'
SPOLIATION
OFEVIDENCE
 I productionrevealsemailsfrom Mr. Tabrizi to Infineonthat were not preservedandproducedby

2 Hynix. See,e.g.,Exh.53 (ITAG-00259310-31l,

9122199
emul from Mr. Tabrizito lnfineon,
J Micron,andotherHynix executives joint meeting);Kim Decl.,!f 106ft).
regarding
4 Samsung,too, engagedin unfettereddestructionof its email resultingin the lossof
5 relevantdocumentsthat would help Rambusillustratethe scope,nature,andimpactofthe price-

6 fixing conspiracy.Indeed,Samsung
automatically
destroyed
e-mailsup to at leastJune2005on
1 an ongoingbasis.Seesupra.SectionII(B)(3) (citingtestimonyof Jay Shim,JonKang,and
I Samsung's
30(bX6)designee
explainingthatSamsung
automaticallyerasedemailsafteroneto

9 two weeks);seealsoMosaid,2004WL 2550306,at *3 (holdingthat Samsung

engaged
in
IO widespreadspoliationof email andfailed to stopthe automaticdestructionof email after

ll of anotherDRAM-relatedlitigationmatter).An exampleof Samsrmg's

commencement email
t2 destructionis anemailfrom Samsung's Il Ung Kim, whichwasproducedby
Vice President
l3 to pressure
Toshibain whichMr. Kim tellsToshibato "hangin there"in response from Dell to

t4 lowerpricesin Spring2001. SeeExh. 50 (TAEC-RMBS-v-MU2569).

A reviewof Samsung's

l5 documentproductiondemonstrates
that it destroyedthis email. Kim Decl.,fl 104(a). The
l6 deshoyedandfailedto produceotheremailsrelatingto
evidenceat trial will showthat Samsung

17 with its competitorsaboutthepricingandproductionof RDRAM. See,e.g.,

its commnnications

l8 Kim Decl.,!f!l I 04(b-e);Exh.5 I (ITAG-00263188);

Exh.52 0TAG-003033228).
l9 Micron alsoengagedin the destructionof email communicationwith its

20 competitors.As of May 2001,Micron'semailsystemwasnot archived.

21 Exh.92(5/2/01Smith
22 Depo.at5:3-6:15,71:14-73:25). (2/14/06
SeealsoExh.93 SmithDepo.at7:11-12,8:2-5).''
2) Exh.93 (2114106
SmithDepo.at

24
25
I l;xh.93 Qll4l06 SmithDepo.al69i25-7219).
26 wereoccurringthroughout 1999-2002.SeeExh. 56
(Micron ConductStatement).The resultsofcf suchactivitieswere communicatedintemally at
27 Micron via email. Seeid. at MSF048731, lines2-5 (notingthatMr. Sadlersharedinformationhe
leamedfrom his contactswith othersat Micron, andthe information wassharedorally and by
28 email).
7634979.1

RAMBUSTNC,'SBRIEFRECARDINCDEFENDANTS'SPOLIAT1ONOF EVIDENCE
 I 53:825,54:21-55:13,74:5-14).
As a result,emailrelevantto this litigationwasdestroyed.For
2 instance,a June7, 2000emailfrom Hynix's FarhadTabrizi (which appearsto havesomehow
J slippedpastMr. Tabrizi's emaildestruction)was sentto, amongothers,Messrs.Lee,Mailloux,

4 Ryan,andSadlerof Micron. Exh. 57 GfR905_435633).

Basedon Micron'sdocument
production.it appearsthat,rozre
of theseindividualspreserved
this email. Kim Decl.,tf 105(e).
6 Themissingemaildiscussed
exactlythetypeof communications
thatwouldbe relevantto this
7 litigation: Defendants'RDRAM pricing to Dell, andDefendants'desireto tell the "InteVdell

8 folks" to "get your headout ofyoul ***t' with respectto RDRAM. Exh, 57 qfR905_435633).

9 The evidenceat trial will alsoshowthat Micron destroyedandfailed to produceolher emails

t0 aboutRDRAM. Seee.g.,Exh.63 (DEL-RAMB 018056produced

relatingto its communications

il by Dell regardingDell RDRAM Demand);Exh. 53 (ITAG-002593

10,producedby Infineon);
12 Exh. 20 (IBIW2 149399,producedby IBM); Kim Decl.,fl 105(a-d).
IJ Rambusis, of course,unableto know whatrelevantinter-Defendant

t4 communicationsweredestroyedby a// recipients. Moreover,one can infer that individualssuch

t5 asFarhadTabrizi, Il Ung Kim, and SteveAppleton communicatedinternally aboutthe price

l6 fixing conspiracyin additionto communicatingwith competitors.Dueto Defendants'destruction

t7 of documents,Rambusandthe Court will neverknow the full natureandsubstanceofthe wholly

l8 intemal communicationsrelevantto this litigation. Therefore,underDefendants'proposed

l9 prejudiceapproach,this Courtshouldpresumethat Defendantsdestroyedcorrespondence

20 relevantto this caseandthat it washarmfirl to Defendants'defenseof this litigation. See,e.g.,

2l MicronOpeningat I l:18-21 (speculating

aboutwhat"lost" emailsmighthaveshown).

22 In addition to email, Rambuswill showthatDefendantsdestroyedrelevant

23 "paper" evidenceexchangedbetweenDefendants,includingdocumentsexchangedin fu(herance

24 of the conspiracyto preventRDRAM from achievingmarketsuccess.As shownin SectionII
)\ above,Defendantsall engagedin what Defendantswould call large-scaledestructionof hard
26 copy documents.As discussedabove,Hynix admittedthat it destroyedmore than 550 boxesof

27 documentsin 2002. Samsung'sPresidentJon Kang,who wasinvolved in Samsung'smarketing

28 of RDRAM in the 2000time frarne,testified that he wouldpersonallyrip up his documentsand

7634979.1

RAMBUSINC.'SBRIEFRECARDING
DEFENDANTS'SPOLIATION
OFEVIDENCE
 I throw them awayaspart of his regular'ogarbage
flush." OtherSamsungwitnesseswho worked

2 notebooks.SeeExh. 74 (7/20/07
on RDRAM admittedto throwing awaytheir company-iszued
J YeonghoKangDep. at93:17-94:6);Exh.77 (8/23107
K.H. KyungDepo.at22:12-23:4);

4 Exh.75 (8/22107
M.H. Kim Depo.at64:22-66:12). havealsoadmittedto
Micronwitnesses

5 destroyinga rangeof"papeC'documents.SeeExh.69 (7l3ll0l DanielsDepo.at9:.4-9,25:.17-

6 27:19)
Exh.87(8/3/01Seibert
Depo.at 52:14-53:13)
8 prejudice
Ifthis CourtadoptsDefendants'

9 and relevancearguments(which Rambusdisputes),then this Court mustpresumethat the paper

l0 docurnentsshredded,bumed,and otherwisedestroyedby Defendantsincludedrelevant
il documentsthat would havebeenharmfulto Defendants'defensehere.

t2 The abovearemerely examplesofthe typesof evidencedestroyedby Defendants

l3 andis not meantto be comprehensive.la

t4 D. Under Defendants'Proposed@ut Inappropriate)Approach For

Sanctions,Rambusis Entitled to ProportionateSanctions
l5
l. Under Defendants'(Inappropriate)Approach,RambusIs Entitled
16 To Terminating Sanctions
l7 proposedapproachfor spoliationand
If the Courtwereto adoptDefendants'

l8 terminatingsanctions,it would needto issuean orderstriking Defendants'answersandgranting

l9 defaultjudgnrentagainstDefendantson eachof Rambus'sclaims. In addition,the Court would

20 (i,e.,its CartwrightAct claim,unfaircompetitionclaim,

needto dismissMicron's cross-claims

andintentionalinterference
claim)lsandSamsung's (i.a.,its Section
remainingcross-claims

22
raAs explainedin prior briefing, allegedmisconductby Rambusin other litigation hasno
23
relevanceto this litigation. However,to the extentthat Defendantsclaim that Rambus'salleged
24 litigation misconductelsewherecausedprejudiceto their ability to defendthis case,Rambus
intendsto presentevidenceof Hynix's litigationmisconductin theNorthemDistrictof Califomia
25 patentcases.Seesupra,SectionII(BX2);seealsoMicronResponse at l0:6-18.
15Rambusnotesthat this Court had announcedits intentionto grantRambus'smotion for
26 summaryjudgment, filed on May 9, 2008,with respectto Micron's CartwrightAct claims. With
respectto Micron's unfair competitionandintentionalinterferencecausesofaction only, the
)7 Courtcontinuedthe hearing,pursuantto Codeof Civ. Proc,$ 437c(h),rmtil the completionof
certainremainingdiscovery.,SeeAug. 1, 2008llrg Tr. at31:5-27.On November20,2008,
28 Rambusinformedthe Court that that discoveryhadbeencompleted,that Micron andRambus
7634919.l

RAMBUS INC,'S BRIEF REGARDINGDEFENDANTS' SPOLIATION OF EVIDENCE

 I 17200claim basedon spoliationallegationsand its intentionalinterferencewith prospective
2 economicadvantageclaim). As explainedabove,underDefendants'view of the law and
J applicationto facts,Defendants'deliberatemisconducthasseriouslyimpaired Rambus'sability
^
.l
to litigate this case,andterminatingsanctionsfor Defendants'spoliationare thereforejustified,
5 2. Under Defendants'(Inappropriate)ApproachTo Spoliation,The
Court ShouldDismissMicron's And Samsung'sCross-Claims
6 Under The DoctrineOf UncleanHands
7 The requisitefindings to establishthe uncleanhandsdefenseareessentiallythe

8 sameasthoserequiredto imposesanctions.Therefore,if terminatingsanctionsarejustified

9 underDefendants'view ofthe law andfacts,the CourtshouldalsodismissMicron's and

l0 Samsung's undertheuncleanhandsdefenseif it adoptsDefendants'proposed(but

cross-claims

ll inappropriate)approach.As explainedabove,Micron andSamsungdestroyeddocumentsin a

t2 deliberateattemptto gain an unfair advantagein litigation againstRambus.16

l3 3. Accordingto Defendants'Proposed@ut Inappropriate) Approach
for SpoliationAnd CollateralEstoppel,Terminating Sanctions
t4 ShouldBe ImposedAgainst Samsung
t5 If the Court adoptsDefendants'proposedstandardsfor spoliationandcollateral
lo estoppel,the Court would needto find that the doctrineof collateralestoppelrequiresthat
t7 terminatingsanctionsbe orderedagains Samsungstriking its answerto Rambus'scomplaint,

l8 enteringjudgment on Rambus'scomplain! and dismissingSamsung'sremainingcross-claims

l9 (t e.,its 17200claim basedon spoliationallegationsandits intentionalinterference

with

20 prospectiveeconomicadvantageclaims). Under Defendants'proposed(erroneous)approach,the

2l spoliationissueresolvedagainstSamsungby the New JerseyDistrict Court in the Mosald

22 thesame"to thespoliationissuein this casefor purposesofcollateral
litigationis "in substance

23
agreethat no further argumentor briefrngis required,andthat the motion shouldbe submittedon
24 the currentrecord.
16Micron (erroneously)assertsthat "spoliation of evidenceis frmdamentallydifferentthan other
25
typesof misconductconsideredin prior casesdecliningto dismissantitust claimsunderthe
26 dostrineof uncleanhands"because"spoliation infectsthe very meritsof plaintiffs claim."
Micron Responseat lS;4-T. If Micron is conecl which Rambusdisputes,the Court would need
27 to dismissMicron's antitrustclaims- i.e., its CartwrightAct claim andthe Section17200claim
basedon allegedconductin violation ofthe CartwrightAct, the ShermanAct, andthe Clayton
28 Act - underthe doctrineof uncleanhands.
7634979.1
_31_
RAMBUS INC.'S BRIEF REGARDING DEFENDANIS' SPOLIATION OF EVIDENCE
 I Reply,filed April 17,2009,a13:9-21,with
estoppel.CompareSamsung Mosaid,348F,Supp.2d
2 at 338-39. Among otherthings,theNew JerseyCourt foundthat (l) Samsungfailed to institute a
J "litigation hold" or "off switch" for its documentretentionpolicy which automaticallydeleted
4 emailson an ongoingbasis;(2) no technicalemailswerepreservedfrom the Semiconductor

5 Division's DRAM Group(the samegroupthat workedon RDRAM) betweenSeptember2001to

6 late2004;(3) emailwasusedby memorydesigners
for variousaspects
of Samsung's
business;
and(4) Samsung's
actionsdemonstrated
"knowingandintentionalconduct.",See.rapr4Section
8 II(BX4). Accordingto Defendants,it is inelevantthat the finding that Samsungengagedin

9 "breathtakingand absolute"spoliationwasrenderedin a patentcase. Mosaid, 2004WL

l0 2550306,at *3. Under Samsung'sproposedcollateralestoppelstandards,it would be

ll conclusivelyestablishedbasedon the New JerseyDisfict Court's findings that Samsung

12 intentionally destroyeddocumentsin anticipationof litigation, andthesefindings would be

IJ sufficient to establishprejudicein this caseasa matterof law.17

l4 4. Under Defendants'(Inappropriate)ApproachTo Spoliation,The

Court ShouldImposeIssueAnd EvidenceSanctionsTo Prevent
l5 PrejudiceAgainstRambus
l6 The samepredicatefindingsthat arerequiredto imposeissuesanctionsalso are

17 requiredto imposeterminatingsanctions,SeeNewAlbertsons,Inc.v. SuperiorCourt,168Cal.

l8 App. 4th 1403,1428-34(2008). Accordingly,absentterminatingsanctions,

andapplying

19 Defendants'standardsfor issuesanctions,the Court shouldorderthat the following facts"shall

20 be takenas established"andthat Defendantsareprohibitedfrom contestingthe following issues

2l in this case:

22 o Defendantsmadeconcertedeffortsto keepthe price of RDRAM high andthe

supply of RDRAM low;

24
17Even if the Cdurt finds tlut terminatingsanctionsarenot appropriate,underthe Defendants'
25
interpretationof the law, Samsungshouldnot be allowedto disputethe New Jeney Court's
26 findings at trial. Applying Defendants'standardsfor collateralestoppel,the Mosaidopinion
clearly constitutessubstantialevidenceof Samsung'sspoliationsuchthat thejury shouldbe
instructedthat Samsunghasbeenfoundguilty of spoliationby a federalcourt, andthat thejury
may infer that the documentsSamsungdeshoyedwould havebeenunfavorableto Samsung's
28 cas'eandfavorableto Rambus's..See Evid. C;de 6 413.

RAMBUSINC.'SBRIEFREGARDING
DEFENDANTS' OFEVIDENCE
SPOLIATION
 I Defendantsengagedin anticompetitivecommunicationsandinformation
exchangesconcemingthe pricing andproductionof DRAM, includingRDRAM;
2
J
Defendantswereawarein 2000and2001that Dell andother OEMsneededlower
RDRAM pricesin orderto drive RDRAM into the mainsteam;
4
Defendants
collectivelyrefusedto meetOEMs' pricingtargetsin 2000and2001;
5
Defendantsagreedto keepDDR pricesandprice projectionslow in orderto obtain
6 designwins for DDR chips andmodulesinsead of RDRAM;

At the time of andafter tle November1999Caminolaunch,therewasno technical

8 reasonwhy RDRAM could not becometlre dominantmemorytechnology;

9 At the time of andafter the November1999Caminolaunch.therewasno technical

reasonwhy RDRAM could not havebeenusedin a variety ofapplications;
IO
Samsungsoughtto becomethe industryleaderin both RDRAM andDDR;
ll
Samsungprefenedthat RDRAM becomea "niche" productasopposedto a
l2
mainstreammemorystandard;and
t3
Hynix andMicron participatedin the price fixing conspiracyto which Samsung
t4 pledguilty.

l5
If the Court appliesDefendants'proposedlegal standardsfor spoliation,Rambusalsointendsto
r6
seekevidencesanctionsby an orderprecludingDefendantsfrom introducingevidencerelatingto
t7
theseissues.
l8
5. Under Defendants'(Inappropriate)Approach To Spoliation,
l9 Adverse Inference Instructions Should Be Given

20 If the Court adoptsDefendants'proposedapproachto spoliation,Rambusalso

2l intendsto requestthat the Court provideadverseinferenceinstructionsagainstDefendantsto the

22 jury. ,9eeEvid. Code$ 413 ("In determiningwhat inferencesto draw from the evidenceor facls

z) in the caseagainsta party, the trier of fact may consider,amongotherthings,the party's ... willful

24 suppressionof evidencerelatingthereto."). As explainedabove,thereis substantialevidence

25 underDefendantsapproachto spoliationthat Defendantsdestroyedinnumerabledocumentsabout

26 "all aspects"of their businesses

andfailed to keepa recordof what was destroyed.Therefore,

27 Rambusintendsto requestadveneinferenceinstructionsthat the evidenceDefendants

28 "intentionally concealedor destroyed. . . would havebeenunfavorableto [Defendants]." CACI

-JJ-

RAMBUSINC.'SBRIEFREGARDING
DEFENDANIS'SPOLIATIONOFEVIDENCE
I 204aseealso BAJI 2.03.rERambusalsointendsto requestan instructionthat thejury may regard

2 suchan inference"as reflecting [the Manufacturer's]recognitionofthe strenglhof plaintiffs case

3 generallyand/orthe weaknessof its own case." Bilwn v. AT&T Info. Sys, 13 Cal' App.4th 976'

4 992(1993),overruledon other groundsby LaHn v. Watkiw Assoc.Indus., 6 Cal. 41he4 Q993).

J E. Even If the Court DoesNot Impose SanctionsOr Give Adverte Inference
Instructions, Rambus Reserve lts Right to Offer Evidence of
6 Ilefendants' Spoliation At Trirrl
7 To the extentthat the Court finds that spoliationis relevantto claims anddefenses

8 assertedby Defendants,Rambusreservesits right to offer evidenceand findings regarding

9 Defendants'spoliationat Eial. Ifthe Court doesnot dismissDefendants'Section17200claims

l0 basedon spoliationallegationsprior to trial, Rambusintendsto offer evidenceof Defendants'

ll documentretentionpolicies andspoliationof evidenceto demonstratethat Rambus'sdocument

t2 retentionpoliciesandpracticeswerenot untawfirl, unfair, or fraudulentunderSection l72}O.te
l3 Rambusalsointendsto assertevidenceofDefendants' uncleanhandsasan equitablefactor
l4 bearingon whetherthe Court shouldgrantany relief Defendantsseekfor Rambus'salleged

l5 spoliation.

l6 Rambusalso reservesthe right to infoduce evidenceof Defendants.'spoliationfor

t7 any purposethat the Court deemsproperin responseto a requestfrom Defendants.For example,

l8 if the Court ultimately were to allow Defendantsto assertspoliationallegationswith Rambus's

l9 witnessesin orderto attacktheir or Rambus'scredibility (asDefendantshavesuggestedthey
20 intendto requestthe right to do), then Rambuswould presentevidenceof witnesses'participation

2l of Defendants'spoliationfor the samepurpose.Rambusmay also offer

in andawareness

22 evidenceof Defendants'spoliationto moveto shift the burdenof proof with respectto certain

23
l8 DeDendineon the evidencepresentedby Defendantsat trial, Rambusmay alsoseekadverse
24
failure to explain or denyevidence(CACI 205) and/ortheir
inferdnceinitnrctions for Defe:ndants'
25 failure to producebetterevidence(CACI 203).
le Rambusalsoreservesits right to ofer evidenceof Defendants'spoliationto establishthat
26
Defendants'uncleanhandslimit or eliminatetheir entitlementto relief underSection17200's
27 remedialprovisions. SeeCortezv. Purolator Air Filtration Prods.Co.,23 Cal.4th 163' 180
(2000) ('A court cannotproperlyexercisean equitablepowerwithout considerationofthe
2E equitiesonbothsidesofa dispute.').
7624t%

OFEVIDENCE
DEFENDANN'SPOLIATION
RAMBUSINC.'SBRIEFREGARDING
 o
I elementsof its claimsand defenses(Evid. Code$ 500); moveto excludethe introductionof

2 evidence;or addressassociateddocumentauthenticationproblems. Rambusalso intendsto assert

J evidenceofDefendants' uncleanhandsas an equitablefactorbearingon whetherthe Court

4 shouldgrantany relief Defendantsseekfor Rambus'sallegedspoliation.

5 w. CONCLUSION
6 Ifthe Court adoptsDefendants'proposedapproachto spoliation,Rambus

respectfullyrequeststhat the Court find that Defendantsengagedin spoliationof evidenceunder

8 thosestandards,strike Defendants'answersandgrant defaultjudgrnent in Rambus'sfavor, find

9 that Itambusis entitledto judgnrentasa matterof law on DefendanS'cross-claims'andimpose

l0 the other sanctionsand/oradverseinferenceinsructions setforth above.

ll DATED: April 20,2009 COTCHETI,PITRE& McCARTHY

t2 MI,JNGE&TOLLES& OLSON
l3
t4
l5 Attomeysfor PlaintiffRAMBUS INC.
l6
t7
l8
l9
20
)l

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-35-
RAMBUSINC.'SBRTEF
REGARDINC SFOLIATIONOFEVIDENCE
DEFENDANTS'