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).
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
DAVID S. BLOCH (SBN: 184530)
dbloch@winston.com
JENNIFER A. GOLINVEAUX (SBN: 203056)
jgolinveaux@winston.com
MARCUS T. HALL (SBN: 206495)
mthall@winston.com
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)
pchassman@winston.com
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?