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

Filing 1582

MOTION for Leave to File Reply in Support of Samsung's Motion to Seal Trial Exhibits and Renewed Motion to File Under Seal filed by Samsung Electronics America, Inc.(a New York corporation), Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Granting Motion for Leave)(Maroulis, Victoria) (Filed on 8/5/2012)

1 QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP
Charles K. Verhoeven (Bar No. 170151)
[e-mail]
2
50 California Street, 22nd Floor
3 San Francisco, California 94111
Telephone: [phone]
4 Facsimile: [phone]
Kevin P.B. Johnson (Bar No. 177129
[e-mail]
Victoria F. Maroulis (Bar No. 202603)
6
[e-mail]
555 Twin Dolphin Drive, 5th Floor
7
Redwood Shores, California 94065-2139
[phone]
8 Telephone:
Facsimile:
[phone]
9
5

Michael T. Zeller (Bar No. 196417)
[e-mail]
865 S. Figueroa St., 10th Floor
11
Los Angeles, California 90017
12 Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
13
10

14 Attorneys for SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO.,
LTD., SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA,
15 INC. and SAMSUNG
TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA, LLC
16
17

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

18

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SAN JOSE DIVISION

19
20 APPLE INC., a California corporation,
Plaintiff,

21
22

vs.

23 SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., a
Korean business entity; SAMSUNG
24 ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., a New
York corporation; SAMSUNG
25 TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA,
LLC, a Delaware limited liability company,
26
Defendant.
27

CASE NO. 11-cv-01846-LHK
SAMSUNG’S ADMINISTRATIVE
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A
REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTIONS TO
SEAL; AND REPLY IN SUPPORT OF
MOTIONS TO SEAL

28
02198.51855/4892956.1

Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK
SAMSUNG’S ADMIN. MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTIONS TO SEAL

1

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE REPLY

2

In accordance with Northern District of California Civil Local Rule 7-11, Samsung

3 Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., and Samsung Telecommunications
4 America, LLC (collectively, “Samsung”) respectfully move the Court for leave to file this Reply
5 in Support of its Renewed Administrative Motion to File Documents Under Seal (Dkt. No. 1490)
6 and Motion to Seal Trial Exhibits (Dkt. No. 1488).
7

Third party Reuters America LLC filed a lengthy response opposing all pending motions to

8 seal filed by Samsung, Apple, and various third parties, and 4 supporting declarations. (Dkt. No.
9 1556-1567.) Reuters’ Opposition and Declarations in support thereof raise numerous new issues
10 that were not contained in any prior briefs filed by Reuters.
11

In light of the extremely sensitive nature of the documents at issue and the harmful

12 implications of disclosure to Samsung, Samsung respectfully requests that the Court grant this
13 motion so that Samsung may have a fair opportunity to respond to Reuters’ contentions.
14
15 DATED: August 3, 2012

Respectfully submitted,

16

QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART &
SULLIVAN, LLP

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

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

25
26
27
28
02198.51855/4892956.1

Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK
SAMSUNG’S ADMIN. MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTIONS TO SEAL

1

REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTIONS TO SEAL

2

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

3 Telecommunications America, LLC (collectively, “Samsung”) submit this Reply in support of its
4 Samsung's Renewed Administrative Motion to File Documents Under Seal (Dkt. No. 1490) and
5 Motion to Seal Trial Exhibits (Dkt. No. 1488).
6
7

Argument
I.

REUTERS FAILS TO ADDRESS AUTHORITIES THAT

8

UNEQUIVOCALLY HOLD THAT PRECISE REVENUE AND COST

9

INFORMATION SHOULD BE SEALED

10

Reuters focuses heavily on why some -- professors, patent holders, press, activists,

11 policymakers, and consumers -- want to have access to Samsung's highly confidential, non-public
12 per-unit costs and profits.

Samsung does not doubt that there is great demand for detailed

13 information about Samsung’s business and finances.

See, e.g., Opp. at 1-13, 19-20; Decl. of Julie

14 Samuels, ¶¶ 3-7; Decl. of Amy Stephens, ¶¶ 3-10; Joint Declaration of Patent Professors, ¶¶ 4-7.
15 However, Reuters simply ignores the most compelling reason to seal this information; the
16 curiosity about Samsung’s per-unit cost and profit data is highest among competitors who hope to
17 use the information to undercut its pricing and product strategy and cannibalize its market share.
18 The public’s legitimate curiosity about the workings of the court system will be more than
19 satisfied through the voluminous documents and trial exhibits that Samsung has not sought to seal,
20 coupled with the associated testimony.
21

Contrary to how Reuters misleadingly frames the issue, at least as to Samsung and the

22 extremely limited category of information Samsung seeks to keep confidential, this dispute is not
23 about public access to Samsung’s general financial information or product and business strategy.
24 The public will get all of that in spades.

The Court’s decision as to Samsung’s confidentiality

25 request need only focus on the narrowest and most sensitive categories, the confidentiality of
26 which would not even be noticed by the curious public, absent the attention given by Reuters, and
27 which would not materially constrain the public’s knowledge about this litigation.
28
02198.51855/4892956.1

Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK
-2SAMSUNG’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTIONS TO SEAL

1

Notwithstanding the potentially innocent public uses for the highly-sensitive information

2 Samsung seeks to seal, no amount of public interest can overcome the compelling reason to seal
3 that exists when a party's confidential information could be used improperly by competitors.
4 Reuters does not contest the case law presented on this issue.

See, e.g., Bean v. John Wiley &

5 Sons, Inc., No. CV 11–08028–PCT–FJM, 2012 WL 1078662, at *6-7 (D. Ariz. Mar. 30, 2012)
6 (production information and “precise revenue information results” and “exact sales and production
7 numbers” which could be used by competitors to calibrate their pricing and distribution methods
8 to undercut defendant also provide compelling reasons for sealing) and Bauer Bros. LLC v. Nike,
9 Inc., No. 09cv500–WQH–BGS, 2012 WL 1899838, at *3-4 (S.D. Cal. May 24, 2012) (revenues
10 per product, revenue reductions, merchandise costs, royalty costs, promotional costs, personnel
11 costs, and costs of goods sold are sealable when a company’s business competitors could use the
12 information to replicate the company’s business practices).
13

Rather than addressing this on-point authority, Reuters makes three unsuccessful

14 arguments.

First, Reuters cites to Fraley v. Facebook, Case no. 11-cv-01726-RS, Document 217

15 at 2:19-25 (N.D. Cal. Aug 1, 2012) (Order Denying Motion for Class Certification, Without
16 Prejudice; Denying Request to Expand List of Potential Cy Pres Recipients, Requiring Further
17 Meet and Confer Negotiations re: Sealing Motions) for the dicta that “it is far from apparent”
18 whether “relevant financial data” and information about how a Facebook feature worked “may
19 warrant sealing” on a motion for preliminary approval of a settlement.

(Opp. at 3.) Judge

20 Seeborg did not evaluate whether any financial information qualified for sealing; he merely
21 suggested what this Court and the parties know – that not every type of financial information is
22 sealable.
23 litigation.

Samsung does not seek to seal every type of financial information at issue in this
The requests here, as explained fully in Samsung’s motions and supporting

24 declarations, are far narrower.
25

Next, Reuter accuses Samsung's supporting declarations of being “conclusory and lacking

26 in helpful specifics.”

(Opp. at 4.) However, Reuters does not identify which declaration is

27 purportedly deficient or what information it claims is missing, nor can it.

Samsung's declarations

28
02198.51855/4892956.1

Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK
-3SAMSUNG’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTIONS TO SEAL

1 describe in detail the documents Samsung seeks to seal and the competitive harm that would result
2 if the information were made public.
3

Finally, Reuters argues that “all of the cases on which the parties rely” are distinguishable

4 because no third party intervened requesting public access.

(Opp. at 12.)

Reuters' rationale

5 appears to be either that courts apply a different standard when third parties intervene, or that no
6 case law regarding sealing can be relied upon unless a third party has intervened.
7 Reuters is wrong.

Either way,

Tellingly, Reuters does not cite a single authority for the proposition that the

8 test for sealing highly-sensitive information somehow changes when a third party intervenes.

As

9 this Court has recognized multiple times, the test is whether compelling reasons exist that
10 outweigh the public’s interest in disclosure, not whether a third party intervenes to compel
11 disclosure.

See, e.g. Dkt. No. 1256 at 2; Dkt. No. 1269 at 2; see also Kamakana v. City and

12 County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1179 (9th Cir. 2006); Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435
13 U.S. 589, 598 - 608 (1978) (holding that Warner Communications, a third party to the original
14 litigation, did not have a right to access the tapes at issue.)
15

When the Court considers the overwhelming amount of knowledge the public has already

16 received and will receive during the trial regarding Samsung's products, patents and business
17 practices, contrasted with Samsung's narrow sealing requests, whatever public interest there could
18 possibly be in Samsung sales figures, manufacturing costs, operating expenses, operating profit,
19 gross margins, and granular product-by-product costs and profits information, if any, is far
20 outweighed by the compelling business need for confidentiality.
21
22
23

II.

REUTERS AGREES WITH SAMSUNG’S PROPOSED TREATMENT OF
SOURCE CODE AND BUSINESS PLAN TRIAL EXHIBITS

Samsung seeks to seal only the actual source code that is introduced into evidence in Trial

24 Exhibit 31, and not testimony or documents discussing the source code.
25 Reuters does not oppose this reasonable and narrowly tailored request.
26

(Dkt. No. 1488, at 5, 6.)
(Opp. at 17:26-28.)

In addition, Reuters does not oppose Samsung’s request to exclude from evidence and the

27 public record portions of certain documents that are not shown to the jury.
28
02198.51855/4892956.1

Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK
-4SAMSUNG’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTIONS TO SEAL

1
2

Conclusion
Samsung’s renewed motion to seal pre-trial exhibits pursuant to the Court’s July 17 order

3 (Dkt. No. 1256) requests the sealing of only portions of 15 documents.

Samsung’s motion to seal

4 trial exhibits requests the sealing of 4 documents in their entirety and portions of only 5
5 documents.

Of the thousands of documents filed with the court, and the millions of pages of

6 documents produced by the parties, this very narrowly tailored request demonstrates Samsung’s
7 commitment to making this an “open trial” pursuant to this Court’s prior statements.
8

Therefore, Samsung respectfully requests that the Court grant its motions to seal.

9
DATED: August 5, 2012

Respectfully submitted,

10
11

QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART &
SULLIVAN, LLP

12
13
14
15
16
17
18

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

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
02198.51855/4892956.1

Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK
-5SAMSUNG’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTIONS TO SEAL