APPLE’S OPPOSITION TO MOTOROLA’S MOTION FOR EXCEPTION FROM PROTECTIVE ORDER
CASE NO. 12-CV-00355-GPC-BLM
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
MERYL L. YOUNG (CA SBN 110156) Y. ERNEST HSIN (CA SBN 201668) myoung@gibsondunn.com ehsin@gibsondunn.com GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 3161 Michelson Drive 1881 Page Mill Road Irvine, CA 92612-4412 Palo Alto, CA 94304-1211 Telephone: (949) 451-3800 Telephone: (650) 849-5322 Fax: (949) 451-4220 Fax: (650) 849-5333 JOSH A. KREVITT (CA SBN 208552) jkrevitt@gibsondunn.com (admitted
pro hac vice
) GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 200 Park Avenue New York, NY 10166-0193 Telephone: (212) 351-4000 Fax: (212) 351-4035 Attorneys for Plaintiffs APPLE INC. and APPLE SALES INTERNATIONAL
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
APPLE INC. and APPLE SALES INTERNATIONAL, Plaintiffs, v. MOTOROLA MOBILITY LLC, Defendant. CASE NO. 3:12-CV-00355-GPC-BLM
PLAINTIFFS APPLE INC.’S AND APPLE SALES INTERNATIONAL’S OPPOSITION TO MOTOROLA’S MOTION FOR EXCEPTION FROM PROTECTIVE ORDER CONFIDENTIAL – FILED UNDER SEAL
Case 3:12-cv-00355-GPC-BLM Document 154-2 Filed 11/13/13 Page 1 of 17
i
APPLE’S OPPOSITION TO MOTOROLA’S MOTION FOR EXCEPTION FROM PROTECTIVE ORDER
CASE NO. 12-CV-00355-GPC-BLM
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page I.
Introduction............................................................................................................ 1
II.
Background ............................................................................................................ 2
A.
Motorola Agreed to a Protective Order that Prohibits It from Using Apple’s Confidential Business Information Outside this Case ................................... 2
B.
Apple Produced Confidential Business Information Regarding Its Supply Chain and License Agreements .................................................................... 3
1.
Document 1 Contains Highly Confidential Apple Business Information ........................................................................................ 4
2.
Document 2 Contains Highly Confidential Apple Business Information ........................................................................................ 5
C.
Motorola Conducted an Unjustified Fishing Expedition and Now Seeks to Benefit from Its Behavior ............................................................................ 5
III.
ARGUMENT ......................................................................................................... 7
A.
Legal Standard ............................................................................................. 8
B.
Abiding by the Protective Order Will Not Prejudice Motorola’s Case ......... 9
C.
Disclosure of Apple’s Confidential Information Would Be Highly Prejudicial .................................................................................................... 9
D.
Motorola’s Motion Is Hypocritical and Contrary to Motorola’s Own Stated Positions Regarding Confidential Business Information ............................ 12
IV.
Conclusion ........................................................................................................... 13
Case 3:12-cv-00355-GPC-BLM Document 154-2 Filed 11/13/13 Page 2 of 17
ii
APPLE’S OPPOSITION TO MOTOROLA’S MOTION FOR EXCEPTION FROM PROTECTIVE ORDER
CASE NO. 12-CV-00355-GPC-BLM
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Page(s)
Cases
Am. Standard, Inc. v. Pfizer, Inc.
, 828 F.2d 734 (Fed. Cir. 1987)....................................................................................... 9
Brown Bag Software v. Symantec Corp.
, 960 F.2d 1465 (9th Cir. 1992) .............................................................................8, 9, 10
Citizens of Humanity LLC v. Costco Wholesale Corp.
, 171 Cal. App. 4th 1 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009) .................................................................... 10
Golden Eagle Dist. Corp. v. Burroughs Corp.
, 801 F.2d 1531 (9th Cir. 1986) .................................................................................. 7, 8
Intel Corp. v. Via Tech., Inc.
, 198 F.R.D. 525 (N.D. Cal. 2000) ................................................................... 8, 9, 11, 12
Kwikset Corp. v. Sup. Ct.
, 51 Cal. 4th 310 (Cal. 2011)......................................................................................... 10
U.S. Steel Corp. v. U.S.
, 730 F.2d 1465 (Fed. Cir. 1984) ............................................................................8, 9, 12
Yeti by Molly Ltd. v. Deckers Outdoor Corp.
, 259 F.3d 1101 (9th Cir. 2001) .................................................................................... 10
Rules
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1) .................................................................................................... 6 Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c) ........................................................................................................ 8
Case 3:12-cv-00355-GPC-BLM Document 154-2 Filed 11/13/13 Page 3 of 17