Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al
Filing
1508
MOTION to Remove Incorrectly Filed Document filed by Qualcomm Incorporated. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Certificate/Proof of Service)(Kays, David) (Filed on 7/30/2012)
1
2
3
4
5
DAVID A. KAYS, ESQ. (SBN 120798)
FREEDA Y. LUGO, ESQ. (SBN 244913)
MORGAN, FRANICH, FREDKIN & MARSH
99 Almaden Boulevard, Suite 1000
San Jose, California 95113-1613
Telephone: (408) 288-8288
Facsimile: (408) 288-8325
ATTORNEYS FOR NON-PARTY
QUALCOMM INCORPORATED
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
SAN JOSE DIVISION
10
11
APPLE INC., a California corporation,
Case No. 11-CV-01846-LHK
12
13
14
15
16
Plaintiff,
v.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., a
Korean corporation; SAMSUNG
ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., a New
York corporation; and SAMSUNG
TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA,
LLC, a Delaware limited liability company,
NON-PARTY QUALCOMM
INCORPORATED’S
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION
TO REMOVE AN
INCORRECTLY FILED
DOCUMENT
17
Defendants.
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Case No. 11-CV-01846-LHK
Administrative Motion to Remove an Incorrectly Filed Document
1
Non-Party Qualcomm Incorporated (“Qualcomm”) respectfully submits
2
this Administrative Motion to Remove an Incorrectly Filed Document, Docket Item
3
1394, Attachment 2 in the Case No: 5:11-CV-01846-LHK. The document contains
4
confidential information of non-party Qualcomm and was intended to be filed under seal.
5
The ongoing public availability of the document would cause potentially substantial
6
injury to Qualcomm.
7
Docket Item 1394 is Qualcomm’s Administrative Motion to Seal
8
Confidential Information filed July 26, 2012. “Attachment 2” as listed on the docket
9
sheet (also identified as “Exhibit 1 to the Declaration of Eric Reifschneider”) is a letter
10
from counsel for Defendants Samsung Electronics Co. et al. to Qualcomm dated July 21,
11
2012 (the “July 21 Letter”) identifying—and reciting—confidential information
12
concerning Qualcomm license agreements contained in proposed Trial Exhibit 630, to
13
give Qualcomm an opportunity to move to have such information admitted into evidence
14
only under seal to preserve confidentiality.
15
Docket Item 1394 is Qualcomm’s motion to seal that information.
16
Obviously, it was intended that Attachment 2 would be filed under seal in its entirety so
17
that the Motion to Seal would not itself disclose the sensitive commercial information,
18
but Attachment 2 was incorrectly not filed under seal.
19
At 9:00 a.m. PDT on Monday July 30, 2012, at the earliest possible
20
opportunity after discovery of this incorrect filing, counsel for Qualcomm notified the
21
ECF HelpDesk for the Northern District of California that Attachment 2 had been filed
22
incorrectly and, following the ECF HelpDesk’s published procedures, Docket Item 1394
23
was locked pending the decision of this motion.
24
Because Attachment 2 contains highly sensitive Qualcomm confidential
25
information that is appropriately the subject matter of a motion to seal for the reasons
26
fully described in Qualcomm’s Administrative Motion to Seal Confidential Information
Case No. 11-CV-01846-LHK
Administrative Motion to Remove an Incorrectly Filed Document
1
filed July 26, 2012, Qualcomm respectfully requests that Attachment 2 to Docket Item
2
1394 be immediately and permanently removed from the court records as incorrectly
3
filed. Qualcomm has filed a Revised Administrative Motion to Seal Confidential
4
Information.
5
6
No deadline relevant to the filing of Qualcomm’s Administrative Motion
to Seal has passed since it was initially filed on July 26.
7
8
Dated: July 30, 2012
MORGAN, FRANICH, FREDKIN & MARSH
9
10
11
12
13
By:
/S/
DAVID A. KAYS
14
Attorneys for Non-Party QUALCOMM,
15
INCORPORATED.
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Case No. 11-CV-01846-LHK
Administrative Motion to Remove an Incorrectly Filed Document
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?