Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al

Filing 1150

MOTION for Extension of Time and to Seal Documents re #1024 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Documents Re Apples Opposition To Samsungs Motion For Summary Judgment, #1022 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Documents Re Apples Opposition To Samsungs Motion For Summary Judgment, #1020 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Documents Under Seal Re Apples Opposition To Samsungs Motion For Summary Judgment, #1023 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Documents Re Apples Opposition To Samsungs Motion For Summary Judgment, #925 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Apple's Motion for Summary Judgment of Non-Infringement of U.S. Patent Number 7,362,867 and Invalidity of U.S. Patent Numbers 7,456,893 and 7,577,460, #1013 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Documents Under Seal Re Apples Opposition To Samsungs Motion For Summary Judgment filed by Samsung Electronics America, Inc.(a New York corporation), Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC(a Delaware limited liability company). Responses due by 7/2/2012. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit 1 to Samsung's Motion, #2 Declaration of Anthony P. Alden in Support of Samsung's Motion, #3 Exhibit 1 to the Alden Declaration, #4 Declaration of Hankil Kang in Support of Samsung's Motion, #5 Exhibit 1 to the Kang Declaration, #6 Exhibit 2 to the Kang Declaration, #7 Exhibit 3 to the Kang Declaration, #8 Exhibit 4 to the Kang Declaration, #9 Exhibit 5 to the Kang Declaration, #10 Exhibit 6 to the Kang Declaration, #11 Exhibit 7 to the Kang Declaration, #12 Exhibit 8 to the Kang Declaration, #13 Exhibit 9 to the Kang Declaration, #14 Exhibit 10 to the Kang Declaration, #15 Exhibit 11 to the Kang Declaration, #16 Exhibit 12 to the Kang Declaration, #17 Exhibit 13 to the Kang Declaration, #18 Exhibit 14 to the Kang Declaration, #19 Exhibit 15 to the Kang Declaration, #20 Exhibit 16 to the Kang Declaration, #21 Exhibit 17 to the Kang Declaration, #22 Exhibit 18 to the Kang Declaration Pt. 1 of 5, #23 Exhibit 18 to the Kang Declaration Pt. 2 of 5, #24 Exhibit 18 to the Kang Declaration Pt. 3 of 5, #25 Exhibit 18 to the Kang Declaration Pt. 4 of 5, #26 Exhibit 18 to the Kang Declaration Pt. 5 of 5, #27 Exhibit 19 to the Kang Declaration, #28 Exhibit 20 to the Kang Declaration, #29 Exhibit 21 to the Kang Declaration, #30 Exhibit 22 to the Kang Declaration, #31 Exhibit 23 to the Kang Declaration, #32 Exhibit 24 to the Kang Declaration, #33 Exhibit 25 to the Kang Declaration, #34 Exhibit 26 to the Kang Declaration, #35 Exhibit 27 to the Kang Declaration, #36 Exhibit 28 to the Kang Declaration, #37 Proposed Order Granting Samsung's Miscellaneous Administrative Request)(Maroulis, Victoria) (Filed on 6/28/2012)

1 QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP
Charles K. Verhoeven (Cal. Bar No. 170151)
 [e-mail]
50 California Street, 22nd Floor
 San Francisco, California 94111
Telephone: [phone]
 Facsimile: [phone]
 Kevin P.B. Johnson (Cal. Bar No. 177129)
[e-mail]
 Victoria F. Maroulis (Cal. Bar No. 202603)
[e-mail]
 555 Twin Dolphin Drive 5th Floor
Redwood Shores, California 94065
 Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

Michael T. Zeller (Cal. Bar No. 196417)
 [e-mail]
865 S. Figueroa St., 10th Floor
 Los Angeles, California 90017
Telephone: [phone]
 Facsimile: [phone]
 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 (PSG)
SAMSUNG’S MISCELLANEOUS
ADMINISTRATIVE REQUEST
PURSUANT TO CIVIL L.R. 7-11 FOR
EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE CIVIL
L.R. 79-5(d) DECLARATION AND TO
SEAL DOCUMENTS
[Linked to Dkt. Nos. 925, 1013, 1020, 1022,
1023, and 1024]
Judge: Hon. Lucy H. Koh
Place: Courtroom 8, 4th Floor




Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK
SAMSUNG'S MISC. ADMIN, REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TIME AND TO SEAL

1

Pursuant to Civil L.R. 7-11 and 79-5, Defendants Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung

2 Electronics America, Inc., and Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC (collectively,
3 “Samsung”) respectfully request an order granting an extension of time to file the declaration
4 contemplated by Civil L.R. 79-5(d), and to seal the documents, or limited portions thereof,
5 identified in the concurrently filed Declaration of Hankil Kang (“Kang Dec.”).
6

1.

On May 17, 2012, and June 1, 2012, Apple, Inc. (“Apple”) filed six administrative

7 motions to file documents under seal (collectively, “motions to file under seal”) corresponding to
8 the following docket numbers: 925, 1013, 1020, 1022, 1023, and 1024.
9

2.

As a result of an inadvertent calendaring error, Samsung did not file a declaration

10 supporting Apple’s motions to seal within the time prescribed by Civil L.R. 79-5(d). (Declaration
11 of Anthony P. Alden (“Alden Dec.”), ¶ 2.) Additionally, Apple’s motions to file under seal were
12 extremely broad. To ensure that Samsung narrowly tailored its request for sealing, as required by
13 Civil L.R. 79-5(b), it was necessary to undertake a careful, page-by-page review of each document
14 encompassed by Apple’s motions to decide which specific portions of those documents, if any,
15 meet the standard for sealing. Given the number of documents subject to Apple’s motions to file
16 under seal and the thoroughness of Samsung’s review and redactions, it has taken considerable
17 time to complete this effort.
18

3.

Samsung has made every effort to exclude from its request all non-confidential

19 information and even confidential information that is not so commercially sensitive as to likely
20 cause commercial harm by its disclosure. Indeed, following Samsung’s review, it has confirmed
21 that only 41 of the 103 documents encompassed by Apple’s motions to file under seal contain
22 information that satisfy the standard for sealing. Of these, Samsung has had to prepare redactions
23 for 29 documents.
24

4.

Exhibit 1 attached hereto contains two tables. Table A identifies those 62

25 documents submitted by Apple in connection with its motions to file under seal which Samsung
26 does not request be sealed. Table B identifies those 41 documents that Samsung requests be
27 sealed in whole or in part, along with each page on which sealable material can be found and the
28 specific reasons for Samsung’s request to seal each specific portion.
Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK
-1SAMSUNG'S MISC. ADMIN, REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TIME AND TO SEAL

1

5.

Samsung has submitted an employee declaration establishing that the documents,

2 or portions thereof, that it asks the Court to seal are trade secrets or otherwise entitled to protection
3 under the law. (See Kang Dec.) The documents that are the subject of the Kang Declaration
4 contain Samsung’s highly confidential and trade secret and proprietary business information,
5 including but not limited to information regarding the design and development of Samsung’s
6 products, highly confidential financial data, internal business structure, product development and
7 engineering, product evaluation and competitive analysis, marketing research and strategies, and
8 the nature of Samsung’s relationships with its business partners.
9

6.

Granting Samsung’s motion will not prejudice any party because the material at

10 issue has remained outside the public record from the time Apple filed its motions to file under
11 seal and the Court has not yet ruled on the motions to file under seal. The short extension
12 Samsung requests will not prejudice Apple, any third party, the Court, or the public interest in
13 access to court records.
14

7.

In contrast, if Samsung’s motion is denied and the documents are made public,

15 Samsung will suffer grave competitive and commercial harm by the disclosure of its trade secret
16 information. (Kang Dec., ¶¶ 2-33.) Disclosure of this information, for example, would interfere
17 with Samsung’s business relationships with suppliers and distributors, and allow Samsung’s
18 competitors to undercut Samsung’s pricing strategies, and to interfere with Samsung’s marketing
19 and advertising plans. This is just the kind of information courts have long recognized should be
20 filed under seal. See, e.g., Bauer Bros. LLC v. Nike, Inc., 2012 WL 1899838, at *2-3 (S.D. Cal.
21 May 24, 2012) (finding compelling reasons to seal marketing strategies, sales and retailer data,
22 product development plans, and financial data because such material “could be used for improper
23 purposes” against the movant); Powertech Techn., Inc. v. Tessera, Inc., 2012 WL 1969039, at *124 2 (N.D. Cal. May 31, 2012) (finding that “compelling reasons” existed to grant plaintiff’s motion
25 to seal to prevent harm caused by “by giving its competitors [] proprietary information”).
26

8.

Samsung submits that it should not be injured by an inadvertent calendaring error

27 and the public interest favors granting Samsung’s motion. “[T]here can be no doubt that society in
28 general is interested in the protection of trade secrets and other valuable commercial information.”
Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK
-2SAMSUNG'S MISC. ADMIN, REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TIME AND TO SEAL

1 Zenith Radio Corp. v. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., 529 F. Supp. 866, 905 (E.D. Pa. 1981); see
2 also Nixon v. Warner Comm’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 598 (1978) (“courts have refused to permit
3 their files to serve . . . as sources of business information that might harm a litigant’s competitive
4 standing”).
5

9.

As explained in the accompanying Declaration of Anthony P. Alden, Samsung

6 sought to obtain consent from Apple before filing the present request pursuant to Civil L.R. 7–11.
7 However, Apple’s counsel failed to respond. (Alden Dec., ¶ 3.)
8

10.

For all these reasons, there is good cause to grant Samsung’s request for an

9 extension of time to file the Kang Declaration, and compelling reasons to allow the exhibits, or the
10 narrowly tailored designated portions thereof, identified in Exhibit 1, Tab B, to be filed under seal.
11

11.

A proposed order is submitted herewith.

12
13 DATED: June 27, 2012
14

QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART &
SULLIVAN, LLP

15
16
17
18
19
20

By

/s/ Victoria F. Maroulis
Charles K. Verhoeven
Kevin P.B. Johnson
Victoria F. Maroulis
Michael T. Zeller
Attorneys for SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO.,
LTD., SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA,
INC. and SAMSUNG
TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA, LLC

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK
-3SAMSUNG'S MISC. ADMIN, REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TIME AND TO SEAL