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

Filing 1192

ORDER GRANTING SAMSUNG'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THE COURTS JUNE 21, 2012 ORDER (DKT. NO. 1115), DENYING SAMSUNG'S REQUEST TO STAY, FOR EXTENSION OF TIME, AND TO SEAL DOCUMENTS by Judge Paul S. Grewal. (ofr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/6/2012)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
10
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SAN JOSE DIVISION
11
APPLE INC., a California corporation,

CASE NO. 11-cv-01846-LHK-PSG

12
Plaintiff,
13
vs.
14
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., a
15 Korean business entity; SAMSUNG
ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., a New
16 York corporation; SAMSUNG
TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA,
17 LLC, a Delaware limited liability company,
18

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING
SAMSUNG’S MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION OF THE COURT’S
JUNE 21, 2012 ORDER (DKT. NO. 1115)
DENYING SAMSUNG’S REQUEST TO
STAY, FOR EXTENSION OF TIME, AND
TO SEAL DOCUMENTS

Defendants.

19
20

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., and Samsung

21 Telecommunications America, LLC (collectively, “Samsung”) have filed a Motion for
22 Reconsideration of the Court’s June 21 Order (Dkt. No. 1115) Denying Samsung’s Request to
23 Stay, For Extension of Time, and to Seal Documents.
24

Samsung requests that Apple’s Administrative Motions (Dkt. Nos. 769, 799, 822, 824, and

25 845) to file documents under seal be granted in part.

Specifically, Samsung requests that the

26 portions of the following documents be filed under seal:
27
28

02198.51855/4826256.1

Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK (PSG)
-1[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING SAMSUNG’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THE COURT’S
JUNE 21, 2012 ORDER (DKT. NO. 1115)

1



Portions of Exhibits C, D, and E to the Reply Declaration of Minn Chung in Support of

2

Apple’s Motion for Rule 37(b)(2) Sanctions for Samsung’s Violation of Two

3

Discovery Orders (“Chung Declaration”) (Dkt. No. 769);

4



Portions of Exhibit Nos. 26, 30, 35, and 38 to the Declaration of Mia Mazza in Support

5

of Apple’s Combined Reply in Support of its Motion to Compel Depositions of

6

Samsung’s Purported “Apex” Witnesses and Opposition to Samsung’s Motion for a

7

Protective Order (“Mazza Declaration”) (Dkt. No. 799);

8



9

Motion Re: Samsung’s Violation of January 27, 2012 Damages Discovery Order
(“Apple’s Damages Sanctions Reply”) (Dkt. No. 822);

10
11



Portions of Exhibits A and I to the Declaration of Erik J. Olson in Support of Apple’s
Damages Sanctions Reply (“Olson Decl.”) (Dkt. No. 822);

12
13

Portions of the unredacted version of Apple’s Reply Brief in Support of Rule 37(b)(2)



Portions of the unredacted version of the Declaration of Eric R. Roberts in Support of

14

Apple’s Damages Sanctions Reply (“Roberts Decl.”), and portions of Exhibits A - C

15

thereto (Dkt. No. 822);

16



Apple’s Damages Sanctions Reply (“Kim Decl.”) (Dkt. No. 822); and

17
18

Portions of Exhibit Nos. 16 and 18 to the Declaration of Grant Kim in Support of



Portions of Exhibit D to the Reply Declaration of Marc J. Pernick in Support of

19

Apple’s Rule 37(b)(2) Motion Based on Samsung’s Violation of the Court’s December

20

22, 2011 Order Regarding Source Code (“Pernick Decl.”) (Dkt. No. 845).

21

Samsung has also filed the Declaration of Hankil Kang in Support of Samsung’s Motion

22 for Reconsideration and Apple Inc.’s Motions to File Under Seal establishing good cause for
23 sealing portions of the documents.
24

Accordingly, for good cause shown, the Court GRANTS Samsung’s Motion for

25 Reconsideration and ORDERS sealed all portions of the documents identified below, and in the
26 highlighted versions lodged with the Court.
27
28

02198.51855/4826256.1

Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK (PSG)
-2[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING SAMSUNG’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THE COURT’S
JUNE 21, 2012 ORDER (DKT. NO. 1115)

1
Dkt. No.

Document

Pages with Redactions

2
Chung Decl., Ex. C

Bates -604-06

4

Chung Decl., Ex. D

Bates -822-23

5

Chung Decl., Ex.

E

Bates -706

Mazza Decl., Ex.

26

Bates -144-63

Mazza Decl., Ex.

30

Bates -609-10

Mazza Decl., Ex.

35

27-28, 31-33, 46

3

6

769

799

7
8
9

Mazza Decl., Ex. 38

22-25

Apple’s Damages Sanctions
Reply

1, 4 n.2, 6, 14

11
12

Olson Decl., Ex. A

Bates -401-11, 414, 417-22, 427-28

10
822

13

Bates -412-13, 415-16

14

Olson Decl., Ex. I (see also
Dkt. No. 824 (moving to
seal Olson Decl., Ex. I))

88, 123-25,

Roberts Decl.

5-7, 9-11

Roberts Decl., Ex. A

Bates -194-266, -269-72, -274-748, -280-82, 284, -286, -288-91, -293-97, -299-301, -303, 305-07, -309-11, -313-15, -317, -319, -321, 323-77 (includes several unmarked pages).

Roberts Decl.,

15

146

Bates -212-38

16
17
18
19
20
21

Ex. B

Roberts Decl., Ex. C

Bates -394-455

23

Kim Decl., Ex. 16

Bates -873-74

24

Kim Decl., Ex. 18

Bates -002

Pernick Decl., Ex. D

Last column only.

22

25

845

26
27
28

02198.51855/4826256.1

Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK (PSG)
-3[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING SAMSUNG’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THE COURT’S
JUNE 21, 2012 ORDER (DKT. NO. 1115)

1

IT IS SO ORDERED.

2
3 DATED:

, 2012

4
5
6

Honorable Paul S. Grewal
United States Magistrate Judge

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

02198.51855/4826256.1

Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK (PSG)
-4[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING SAMSUNG’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THE COURT’S
JUNE 21, 2012 ORDER (DKT. NO. 1115)