Judge Koh said that legally, Hogan's comments after the trial couldn't be used as evidence in a new trial, and if Samsung had a problem with Hogan, it should have pursued those issues during the voir dire part of jury selection, when jurors are questioned. "Prior to the verdict, Samsung could have discovered Mr Hogan's litigation with Seagate, had Samsung acted with reasonable diligence based on information Samsung acquired through voir dire, namely that Mr Hogan stated during voir dire that he had worked for Seagate," the ruling said. "What changed between Samsung's initial decision not to pursue questioning or investigation of Mr Hogan, and Samsung's later decision to investigate was simple: the jury found against Samsung, and made a very large damages award.