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)

Download PDF
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?