Interesting question, and exactly the same one (in not so many words) that Apple asked Samsung. Apple wanted to make the point that if Samsung didn't know until after the trial then it was THEIR responsibility to have found out.
Samsung have answered that they did not know beforehand, and now they are demanding the same of Apple since either Apple did know before the trial and did not volunteer material facts, or, like Samsung, they did not investigate Hogan because - as Samsung said all along - there was no reason to. Surprise surprise, Apple don't want to answer, and now Samsung is asking the court to compel Apple to disclose the info.
The following is from Samsung's motion to compel:
"Samsung will respond in due course in its reply to this remarkable and untenable suggestion that it should have extra-judicially investigated a sitting juror’s bankruptcy despite its lack of relevance to any question asked on voir dire. But in order to have a full and fair opportunity to reply to Apple’s “waiver” argument, Samsung is entitled to know when Apple first learned of Mr. Hogan’s undisclosed Seagate litigation, including whether it knew of Mr. Hogan’s misstatements to the Court prior to Samsung’s post-trial motion and nonetheless concealed that knowledge from the Court. Apple’s answer to that question is relevant both to whether Apple complied with its obligation to disclose known misrepresentations to the Court and whether a reasonable litigant in this case should have discovered Mr. Hogan’s untruthfulness sooner than Samsung did. Apple has refused to disclose this information despite Samsung’s request. Samsung therefore respectfully requests that the Court compel Apple to disclose when it first learned of Mr. Hogan’s undisclosed Seagate litigation....
"If Apple knew that Mr. Hogan’s statements were untruthful all along and stood silent in order to gain a tactical advantage from the seating of a biased juror, Apple’s misconduct would itself warrant sanction and relief and certainly must be disclosed. If, on the other hand, Apple, like Samsung, did not know that Mr. Hogan had been untruthful until after the verdict, that is relevant evidence that Samsung’s reliance on the presumptive veracity of Mr. Hogan’s voir dire responses during trial was reasonable. Apple cannot fault Samsung for not discovering juror untruthfulness while refusing to disclose whether and when Apple itself discovered this untruthfulness."