Scribd

1

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK

SAMSUNG’S AMENDED MOTION TO COMPEL APPLE TO PROVIDE INFORMATION REGARDING ITS PUBLIC DISCLOSURES OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION

QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP Charles K. Verhoeven (Cal. Bar No. 170151) charlesverhoeven@quinnemanuel.com 50 California Street, 22

nd

Floor San Francisco, California 94111 Telephone: (415) 875-6600 Facsimile: (415) 875-6700 Kathleen M. Sullivan (Cal. Bar No. 242261) kathleensullivan@quinnemanuel.com Kevin P.B. Johnson (Cal. Bar No. 177129) kevinjohnson@quinnemanuel.com Victoria F. Maroulis (Cal. Bar No. 202603) victoriamaroulis@quinnemanuel.com 555 Twin Dolphin Drive 5

th

Floor Redwood Shores, California 94065 Telephone: (650) 801-5000 Facsimile: (650) 801-5100 William C. Price (Bar No. 108542) williamprice@quinnemanuel.com Michael T. Zeller (Cal. Bar No. 196417) michaelzeller@quinnemanuel.com 865 S. Figueroa St., 10th Floor Los Angeles, California 90017 Telephone: (213) 443-3000 Facsimile: (213) 443-3100 Attorneys for SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC. and SAMSUNG TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA, LLC UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SAN JOSE DIVISION APPLE INC., a California corporation, Plaintiff, vs. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., a Korean business entity; SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., a New York corporation; SAMSUNG TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Defendants. CASE NO. 11-cv-01846-LHK

SAMSUNG’S AMENDED NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL APPLE TO PROVIDE INFORMATION REGARDING ITS PUBLIC DISCLOSURES OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION Date: April 8, 2014 Time: 10:00 am Judge: Hon. Paul S. Grewal Place: Courtroom 5, 4th Floor

Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document3009 Filed03/05/14 Page1 of 15

-ii-



NOTICE OF MOTION

TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on April 8, 2014, at 10:00 a.m., or as soon thereafter as this matter may be heard in the above entitled Court, located at 280 South 1st Street, San Jose, CA 95113, Defendants Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., and Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC (collectively, “Samsung”) hereby move pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37 for an order to compel Apple Inc. (“Apple”) to provide information and transparency regarding its system for protecting confidential business information (“CBI”) in compliance with the protective order, including the circumstances surrounding Apple’s October 2013 public filing of CBI concerning certain terms of the Apple-Nokia and Apple-NEC licenses, and its subsequent filing of Samsung’s and others’ CBI, during the time when Apple was seeking sanctions for protective order violations against Samsung. The requested information is relevant to determine whether Apple itself has violated the protective order, and whether further remedial action by Samsung, including document production and potentially sanctions, is necessary. The information is independently relevant to determine whether the fees and costs to be awarded to Apple and Nokia in connection with the recently-concluded protective order proceedings against Samsung should be reduced, because a full award would be unjust in these circumstances. Despite several meet and confer efforts, Apple persists in refusing to provide the requested information.

RELIEF REQUESTED

Samsung respectfully requests that the Court order Apple to provide Rule 30(b)(6) deposition testimony and a sworn declaration regarding the following subjects: 1.

Apple’s system for protecting CBI in compliance with the protective order, including the names and titles of the persons involved in the October 2013 inadvertent disclosure and what each of them did as part of Apple’s “multi-level review process” for the particular filing at issue, and whether that system allowed competitors’ CBI to be distributed within Apple and/or publicly in October 2013 and thereafter; 2.

Whether Apple undertook an investigation of possible earlier disclosures of CBI (such as


-iii-



the October 2013 disclosure) after it learned of its November 2013 disclosures, and whether Apple’s knowledge of those November 2013 disclosures caused Apple to modify its system to avoid such disclosures in the future; 3.

The investigation Apple performed in February 2014, after it claims to have learned of the October 2013 disclosure, including (a) whether Apple or other persons not authorized by the protective order received, disseminated or used the CBI, (b) whether Samsung was promptly informed of this and other disclosures, (c) whether Apple took prompt remedial action and complied with all provisions of the protective order, and (d) what searches Apple had done and what Apple knew before it informed the Court and Samsung that it had no information that “the [improperly redacted October 2013] document was distributed on the Internet or otherwise used;” and 4.

Nokia’s and NEC’s responses to Apple’s revelation that certain terms of their licenses with Apple were publicly filed in October 2013 and remained on the public docket for four months (including copies of such correspondence).

SAMSUNG’S CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 37(a)(1)

Samsung hereby certifies that it has in good faith conferred with Apple in an effort to obtain the discovery described above without Court action, and that Samsung has been in continuous correspondence with Apple on this issue since the revelation of Apple’s October 10, 2013 public disclosure of the terms of its licenses with Nokia and NEC on February 11, 2014. Samsung’s efforts to resolve this discovery dispute without court intervention are described in the Declaration of Robert J. Becher, submitted herewith.
