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

Filing 1606

REPLY in Support of ( 1488 MOTION to Seal Trial Exhibits 1490 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Samsung's Renewed Motion to Seal Dkt. Nos. 927, 991, 1013, 1022, 1060, 1206 ) filed by Samsung Electronics America, Inc.(a New York corporation), Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC. (Maroulis, Victoria) (Filed on 8/7/2012) Modified text on 8/8/2012 (dhm, COURT STAFF).

Download PDF
1 QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP Charles K. Verhoeven (Bar No. 170151)  50 California Street, 22nd Floor  San Francisco, California 94111 Telephone: (415) 875-6600  Facsimile: (415) 875-6700  Kevin P.B. Johnson (Bar No. 177129 Victoria F. Maroulis (Bar No. 202603)  555 Twin Dolphin Drive, 5th Floor  Redwood Shores, California 94065-2139 (650) 801-5000  Telephone: Facsimile: (650) 801-5100   Michael T. Zeller (Bar No. 196417) 865 S. Figueroa St., 10th Floor  Los Angeles, California 90017  Telephone: (213) 443-3000 Facsimile: (213) 443-3100   Attorneys for SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA,  INC. and SAMSUNG TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA, LLC   UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT  NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SAN JOSE DIVISION   APPLE INC., a California corporation, CASE NO. 11-cv-01846-LHK  SAMSUNG’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTIONS TO SEAL  Plaintiff, vs.  SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., a Korean business entity; SAMSUNG  ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., a New York corporation; SAMSUNG  TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company,  Defendant.   02198.51855/4896410.1 Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK SAMSUNG’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTIONS TO SEAL 1 REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTIONS TO SEAL  Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., and Samsung  Telecommunications America, LLC (collectively, “Samsung”) submit this Reply in support of its  Samsung's Renewed Administrative Motion to File Documents Under Seal (Dkt. No. 1490) and 1  Motion to Seal Trial Exhibits (Dkt. No. 1488).  Argument  I. REUTERS FAILS TO ADDRESS AUTHORITIES THAT  UNEQUIVOCALLY HOLD THAT PRECISE REVENUE AND COST  INFORMATION SHOULD BE SEALED  Reuters focuses heavily on why some -- professors, patent holders, press, activists,  policymakers, and consumers -- want to have access to Samsung's highly confidential, non-public  per-unit costs and profits. Samsung does not doubt that there is great demand for detailed  information about Samsung’s business and finances. See, e.g., Opp. at 1-13, 19-20; Decl. of Julie  Samuels, ¶¶ 3-7; Decl. of Amy Stephens, ¶¶ 3-10; Joint Declaration of Patent Professors, ¶¶ 4-7.  However, Reuters simply ignores the most compelling reason to seal this information; the  curiosity about Samsung’s per-unit cost and profit data is highest among competitors who hope to  use the information to undercut its pricing and product strategy and cannibalize its market share.  The public’s legitimate curiosity about the workings of the court system will be more than  satisfied through the voluminous documents and trial exhibits that Samsung has not sought to seal,  coupled with the associated testimony.  Contrary to how Reuters misleadingly frames the issue, at least as to Samsung and the  extremely limited category of information Samsung seeks to keep confidential, this dispute is not  about public access to Samsung’s general financial information or product and business strategy.  The public will get all of that in spades. The Court’s decision as to Samsung’s confidentiality  request need only focus on the narrowest and most sensitive categories, the confidentiality of    02198.51855/4896410.1 1 The Court has granted Samsung’s motion for leave to file this Reply. (Dkt. No. 1598.) Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK SAMSUNG’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTIONS TO SEAL 1 which would not even be noticed by the curious public, absent the attention given by Reuters, and 2 which would not materially constrain the public’s knowledge about this litigation. 3 Notwithstanding the potentially innocent public uses for the highly-sensitive information 4 Samsung seeks to seal, no amount of public interest can overcome the compelling reason to seal 5 that exists when a party's confidential information could be used improperly by competitors. 6 Reuters does not contest the case law presented on this issue. See, e.g., Bean v. John Wiley & 7 Sons, Inc., No. CV 11–08028–PCT–FJM, 2012 WL 1078662, at *6-7 (D. Ariz. Mar. 30, 2012) 8 (production information and “precise revenue information results” and “exact sales and production 9 numbers” which could be used by competitors to calibrate their pricing and distribution methods 10 to undercut defendant also provide compelling reasons for sealing) and Bauer Bros. LLC v. Nike, 11 Inc., No. 09cv500–WQH–BGS, 2012 WL 1899838, at *3-4 (S.D. Cal. May 24, 2012) (revenues 12 per product, revenue reductions, merchandise costs, royalty costs, promotional costs, personnel 13 costs, and costs of goods sold are sealable when a company’s business competitors could use the 14 information to replicate the company’s business practices). 15 Rather than addressing this on-point authority, Reuters makes three unsuccessful 16 arguments. First, Reuters cites to Fraley v. Facebook, Case no. 11-cv-01726-RS, Document 217 17 at 2:19-25 (N.D. Cal. Aug 1, 2012) (Order Denying Motion for Class Certification, Without 18 Prejudice; Denying Request to Expand List of Potential Cy Pres Recipients, Requiring Further 19 Meet and Confer Negotiations re: Sealing Motions) for the dicta that “it is far from apparent” 20 whether “relevant financial data” and information about how a Facebook feature worked “may 21 warrant sealing” on a motion for preliminary approval of a settlement. (Opp. at 3.) Judge 22 Seeborg did not evaluate whether any financial information qualified for sealing; he merely 23 suggested what this Court and the parties know – that not every type of financial information is 24 sealable. Samsung does not seek to seal every type of financial information at issue in this 25 litigation. The requests here, as explained fully in Samsung’s motions and supporting 26 declarations, are far narrower. 27 Next, Reuter accuses Samsung's supporting declarations of being “conclusory and lacking 28 in helpful specifics.” (Opp. at 4.) However, Reuters does not identify which declaration is 02198.51855/4896410.1 Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK -2SAMSUNG’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTIONS TO SEAL 1 purportedly deficient or what information it claims is missing, nor can it. Samsung's declarations 2 describe in detail the documents Samsung seeks to seal and the competitive harm that would result 3 if the information were made public. 4 Finally, Reuters argues that “all of the cases on which the parties rely” are distinguishable 5 because no third party intervened requesting public access. (Opp. at 12.) Reuters' rationale 6 appears to be either that courts apply a different standard when third parties intervene, or that no 7 case law regarding sealing can be relied upon unless a third party has intervened. 8 Reuters is wrong. Either way, Tellingly, Reuters does not cite a single authority for the proposition that the 9 test for sealing highly-sensitive information somehow changes when a third party intervenes. As 10 this Court has recognized multiple times, the test is whether compelling reasons exist that 11 outweigh the public’s interest in disclosure, not whether a third party intervenes to compel 12 disclosure. See, e.g. Dkt. No. 1256 at 2; Dkt. No. 1269 at 2; see also Kamakana v. City and 13 County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1179 (9th Cir. 2006); Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 14 U.S. 589, 598 - 608 (1978) (holding that Warner Communications, a third party to the original 15 litigation, did not have a right to access the tapes at issue.) 16 When the Court considers the overwhelming amount of knowledge the public has already 17 received and will receive during the trial regarding Samsung's products, patents and business 18 practices, contrasted with Samsung's narrow sealing requests, whatever public interest there could 19 possibly be in Samsung sales figures, manufacturing costs, operating expenses, operating profit, 20 gross margins, and granular product-by-product costs and profits information, if any, is far 21 outweighed by the compelling business need for confidentiality. 22 23 24 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 25 Exhibit 31, and not testimony or documents discussing the source code. (Dkt. No. 1488, at 5, 6.) 26 Reuters does not oppose this reasonable and narrowly tailored request. (Opp. at 17:26-28.) 27 In addition, Reuters does not oppose Samsung’s request to exclude from evidence and the 28 public record portions of certain documents that are not shown to the jury. 02198.51855/4896410.1 Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK -3SAMSUNG’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTIONS TO SEAL 1 2 3 Conclusion Samsung’s renewed motion to seal pre-trial exhibits pursuant to the Court’s July 17 order 4 (Dkt. No. 1256) requests the sealing of only portions of 15 documents. Samsung’s motion to seal 5 trial exhibits requests the sealing of 4 documents in their entirety and portions of only 5 6 documents. Of the thousands of documents filed with the court, and the millions of pages of 7 documents produced by the parties, this very narrowly tailored request demonstrates Samsung’s 8 commitment to making this an “open trial” pursuant to this Court’s prior statements. 9 Therefore, Samsung respectfully requests that the Court grant its motions to seal. 10 DATED: August 7, 2012 Respectfully submitted, 11 12 QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP 13 14 By 15 16 17 18 19 /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 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 02198.51855/4896410.1 Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK -4SAMSUNG’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTIONS TO SEAL

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?