Amicus Curiae Brief of Lawyers for Civil Justice Case Nos. 5:17-cv-00220-LHK & 5-17-md-027730-LHK
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
Attorneys for Amicus Curiae LAWYERS FOR CIVIL JUSTICE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, et al. Plaintiffs, v. QUALCOMM INCORPORATED, et al., Defendants. In re Qualcomm Antitrust Litigation ))))))))))))))))))))Case No.: 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Case No.: 5:17-md-02773-LHK BRIEF OF LAWYERS FOR CIVIL JUSTICE AS AMICUS CURIAE RE: NON-PARTY APPLE INC.’S MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S NONDISPOSITIVE PRETRIAL ORDER IMPOSING SANCTIONS Hearing Date: February 15, 2018 Hearing Time: 1:30 PM Courtroom: 8, 4th Floor THE HONORABLE LUCY H. KOH JONATHAN M. REDGRAVE jredgrave@redgravellp.com (PHV submitted) CHARLES R. RAGAN (SBN: 072319) cragan@redgravellp.com SCOTT J. BORROWMAN (SBN: 241021) sborrowman@redgravellp.com REDGRAVE LLP 455 Market Street, Suite 1920 San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: (415) 471-2046 Facsimile: ALYSSA CARIDIS (SBN: 260103) acaridis@orrick.com WENDY BUTLER CURTIS wcurtis@orrick.com (PHV submitted) ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP The Orrick Building 405 Howard Street San Francisco, CA 94105-2669 Telephone: (415) 773-5700 Facsimile:
Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 526-3 Filed 01/31/18 Page 1 of 25
i Amicus Curiae Brief of Lawyers for Civil Justice Case Nos. 5:17-cv-00220-LHK & 5-17-md-027730-LHK
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
Table of Contents I.INTEREST OF
1II.INTRODUCTION 2III.ARGUMENT 3A.Even As To Parties, Discovery Sanctions Are Appropriate Only In Narrow and Exceptional Circumstances 41.Discovery sanctions should be issued only to address deliberate misconduct or to remedy prejudice to other litigants
2.Discovery sanctions should use the least severe means necessary to accomplish the intended purpose
B.As To Non-Parties, the Standard For Discovery Sanctions Is Even Higher 81.Rule 45 Guarantees Non-Parties Important Procedural Protections Before a Discovery Sanction May Issue
2.Rule 45 Guarantees That Non-Parties Will Be Shielded From Discovery Burdens That Impose “Significant Expense”
C.Producing Entities Are In the Best Position to Determine the Means and Methods of Document Production 13IV.CONCLUSION 15APPENDIX A: KEY FACTS 17
Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 526-3 Filed 01/31/18 Page 2 of 25
ii Amicus Curiae Brief of Lawyers for Civil Justice Case Nos. 5:17-cv-00220-LHK & 5-17-md-027730-LHK
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
Table of Authorities Cases
Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co.
, No. 11-cv-01846 at Dkt. 880 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 23, 2012) ....... 11
Freedman v. Weatherford Int’l
, No. 12 Civ. 2121, 2014 WL 4547039 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 12, 2014)................................................................................................................................................... 14
Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Haeger
, __ U.S. __, 137 S.Ct. 1178, 197 L.Ed.2d 585 (2017) 2, 6
Gucci America, Inc. v. Li
, No. 10-CV-4974 (RJS), 2015 WL 7758872 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 30, 2015
)
................................................................................................................................................... 10
Hyles v. New York City
, 10 Civ. 3119, 2016 WL 4077114 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 1, 2016) .................. 14
In re Ford Motor Co.
, 345 F.3d 1315 (11th Cir. 2003) ................................................................ 14
In re Pham
, No. CC-17-1000-LSTa, 2017 WL 5148452 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. Nov. 6, 2017) .............. 9
Int’l Union, Mine Workers of Am. v. Bagwell
, 512 U.S. 821 (1994) ............................................ 10
Kleen Prods., LLC v. Packaging Corp. of Am.,
No. 10 C 5711, 2012 WL 4498465 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 28, 2012) .......................................................................................................................... 14
Kleppinger v. Texas Dept. of Transportation,
No. L-10-124, 2013 WL 12137773 (S.D. Tex. Jan. 24, 2013) ................................................................................................................................... 13
Koninklijke Philips N.V. v. Hunt Control Sys., Inc.,
No. 11-cv-03684, 2014 WL 1494517 (D.N.J. Apr. 16, 2014) ........................................................................................................................... 14
LifeScan Scotland, Ltd. v. Shasta Technologies, LLC
, No. 11-CV-04494-WHO, 2013 WL 4604746 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 28, 2013
)
.......................................................................................... 10
Matrix Partners VIII, LLP v. Natural Resource Recover, Inc
., Civil Action No. 08-547, 2009 WL 10677430 (E.D. Tex. June 5, 2009) .......................................................................................... 13
Molina v. City of Visalia
, No. 1:13-cv-01991-LJO-SAB, 2015 WL 5193584 at *2 (Sept. 4, 2015)..................................................................................................................................................... 9
Pennwalt Corp. v. Durand-Wayland, Inc
., 708 F.2d 492 (9th Cir. 1983) ...................................... 9
Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 526-3 Filed 01/31/18 Page 3 of 25