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

Filing 1605

REPLY in Support of ( 1400 Emergency Motion by Non-Party Motorola Mobility LLC to Seal Exhibits, Close Courtroom and Seal Portions of Transcript ) filed by Motorola Mobility LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(Golinveaux, Jennifer) (Filed on 8/7/2012) Modified text on 8/8/2012 (dhm, COURT STAFF).

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 DAVID S. BLOCH (SBN: 184530) JENNIFER A. GOLINVEAUX (SBN: 203056) MARCUS T. HALL (SBN: 206495) WINSTON & STRAWN LLP 101 California Street San Francisco, CA 94111-5894 Telephone: (415) 591-1000 Facsimile: (415) 591-1400 PETER J. CHASSMAN (admitted pro hac vice) WINSTON & STRAWN LLP 1111 Louisiana St., 25th Floor Houston, TX 77002-5242 Telephone: (713) 651-2623 Facsimile: (713) 651-2700 Attorneys for Non-Party, MOTOROLA MOBILITY LLC 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 14 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 15 SAN JOSE DIVISION 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 APPLE, INC., a California Corporation, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., a ) Korean corporation; SAMSUNG ) ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., a New York ) corporation; SAMSUNG ) TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA, LLC, a ) Delaware limited liability company, ) ) Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) CASE NO.: 11-CV-01846-LHK REPLY IN SUPPORT OF EMERGENCY MOTION BY NONPARTY MOTOROLA MOBILITY LLC TO SEAL EXHIBITS, CLOSE COURTROOM, AND SEAL PORTIONS OF TRANSCRIPT [Civ. L.R. 79-5] Date: Expedited Request Courtroom: 8, 4th Floor Judge: Hon. Lucy H. Koh 27 28 REPLY IN SUPPORT OF EMERGENCY MOT’N BY NONPARTY MOTOROLA TO SEAL Case No. 11-CV-01846-LHK 1 Motorola Mobility LLC files this brief reply in support of its emergency motion to seal 2 exhibits, close the courtroom, and seal portions of the transcript (Dkt. No. 1400), its 3 supplemental submission in support thereof (Dkt. No. 1491), and papers submitted in support 4 thereof. The supporting papers included the declaration of Motorola’s Thomas V. Miller, which 5 provided a particularized document-by-document showing of the harm that would result from 6 disclosure of the Motorola confidential information that was the subject of Motorola’s motion. 7 Motorola is a non-party to the present case. On July 27, 2012, the Court held a hearing 8 that addressed a number of issues, including requests by non-parties to seal their confidential 9 license and other information. During that hearing, the Court indicated that, as requested by 10 various non-parties, license terms including royalty rate, payment/compensation, and duration 11 are protected from published disclosure. Transcript of Case Management Conference at 27:15- 12 19 (July 27, 2012), Apple v. Samsung, No. 11-CV-01846-LHK (N.D. Cal.). At that hearing, 13 Reuters argued that past license agreements should not be entitled to the same protections, and 14 the Court permitted the non-parties to submit supplemental declarations to explain how 15 disclosure of past license agreements would cause irreparable harm, then they would receive 16 protection from disclosure as well. 17 included the Declaration of one of its directors, Brian C. Blasius (Dkt. No. 1491-1). Mr. Blasius’ 18 declaration made a specific showing as to why disclosure of the terms of the three past Motorola 19 license agreements at issue would cause irreparable harm to Motorola, just as disclosure of terms 20 of current license agreements would. Mr. Blasuis’ declaration, in combination with Motorola’s 21 motion and supporting declaration of Mr. Miller, satisfied the “compelling reasons” standard. Id. at 28:11-14. Motorola’s supplemental submission 22 Reuters filed its opposition to the non-parties’ motions to seal, but it did not address the 23 specifics of any of the Motorola documents at issue. Despite Reuters’ argument at the July 27 24 Case Management Conference that past license agreements should receive treatment different 25 from current license agreements, Reuters provided no legal basis for that position in its 26 opposition, nor did it address the particularized showing that Motorola made as to the Motorola- 27 Samsung agreements at issue. Instead, Reuters turned to a contorted policy argument that the 28 public would benefit from knowing the details of business deals between companies – a policy -1REPLY IN SUPPORT OF EMERGENCY MOT’N BY NONPARTY MOTOROLA TO SEAL Case No. 11-CV-01846-LHK 1 that would lead to preposterous results. Opposition (Dkt. No. 1556) at p. 19. Instead of dealing 2 with the facts and specific concerns of the non-parties at hand, incredibly Reuters relies on a 3 joint declaration of five college professors who do not even purport to know the facts of the 4 situation (Dkt. No. 1556-4). Yes, even Reuters’ declarants “recognize and respect the value of 5 confidentiality with respect to licensing data.” Id., ¶ 7. Reuters failed to mention that in its 6 opposition. 7 Because Reuters has not come close to refuting Motorola’s showing of compelling 8 reasons, particularly as a non-party, that its confidential information at issue should be sealed, 9 Motorola respectfully requests that the court grant Motorola’s motion to seal. 10 11 Dated: August 6, 2012 WINSTON & STRAWN LLP 12 13 14 15 16 By: /s/ Jennifer A. Golinveaux David S. Bloch Jennifer A. Golinveaux Marcus T. Hall Peter J. Chassman (admitted pro hac vice) Attorneys for Non-Party, MOTOROLA MOBILITY LLC 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -2REPLY IN SUPPORT OF EMERGENCY MOT’N BY NONPARTY MOTOROLA TO SEAL Case No. 11-CV-01846-LHK

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?