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

Filing 1625

OBJECTIONS to re 1597 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING A PROCEDURE FOR REDUCING THE NUMBER OF SEALING REQUESTS by Motorola Mobility LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(Golinveaux, Jennifer) (Filed on 8/8/2012)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

DAVID S. BLOCH (SBN: 184530)
[e-mail]
JENNIFER A. GOLINVEAUX (SBN: 203056)
[e-mail]
MARCUS T. HALL (SBN: 206495)
[e-mail]
WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
101 California Street
San Francisco, CA 94111-5894
Telephone:
[phone]
Facsimile:
[phone]
PETER J. CHASSMAN (admitted pro hac vice)
[e-mail]
WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
1111 Louisiana St., 25th Floor
Houston, TX 77002-5242
Telephone:
[phone]
Facsimile:
[phone]
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

NONPARTY MOTOROLA
MOBILITY LLC’S OBJECTION TO
THE JOINT STIPULATION AND
[PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING
A PROCEDURE FOR REDUCING
THE NUMBER OF SEALING
REQUESTS
Date: Expedited Request
Courtroom: 8, 4th Floor
Judge: Hon. Lucy H. Koh

27
28
NONPARTY MOTOROLA MOBILITY LLC’S OBJECTION TO THE JOINT STIPULATION RE: SEALING REQUESTS
Case No. 11-CV-01846-LHK

1

Nonparty Motorola Mobility LLC (“Motorola”) submits this objection to the Joint

2

Stipulation and [Proposed] Order Regarding a Procedure for Reducing the Number of Sealing

3

Requests (Dkt. 1597) (“Stipulation”) filed by parties Apple and Samsung. As set forth in

4

nonparties’ Research in Motion Corp. and Research in Motion Ltd.’s (“RIM’s”) objection to the

5

Stipulation (Dkt. 1613), the Stipulation, if adopted by the Court, would substantially undermine

6

the relief that Motorola and other nonparties have sought in order to protect their highly sensitive

7

and trade secret information.

8

Specifically, the Stipulation appears to allow public disclosure of the key business and

9

financial terms of Motorola’s licenses with Samsung if the parties “substitute neutral, non-

10

identifying designations (such as ‘Party A’) for all third parties identified in such licensing

11

agreements, summaries or charts to the extent such third parties will not be the subject of

12

testimony.” Stipulation, ¶ 5. Like RIM and the other nonparties, Motorola has already filed

13

public redacted versions of the information contained in the Trial Exhibits referenced in

14

paragraph 5 of the Stipulation. Specifically, Motorola has filed public redacted versions of the

15

information contained in Trial Exhibits 77, 82, and 630, which identify Motorola as the licensor,

16

and a public redacted version of Trial Exhibit 631 with certain fields left unredacted. If these

17

Trial Exhibits are publicly disclosed pursuant to the Stipulation, with non-identifying

18

designations substituted for Motorola’s name, it would be trivial for members of the public,

19

including Motorola’s competitors, to compare the redacted versions filed by Motorola with the

20

redacted versions disclosed pursuant to the Stipulation, and gain access to the very information

21

that Motorola, and the other non-parties, seeks to protect—information that the Court has

22

indicated merits protection under controlling Ninth Circuit law. The terms common to both

23

public disclosures could easily be matched to identify Motorola as the counterparty to the

24

licensing information.

25

In addition, as explained by RIM in its opposition, any third party that is the “subject of

26

testimony” would appear to receive no protections whatsoever pursuant to the Stipulation.

27

Stipulation, ¶ 5 (emphasis added) (“The parties will substitute neutral, non-identifying

28

designations . . . to the extent such third parties will not be the subject of testimony.”). For this
-1NONPARTY MOTOROLA MOBILITY LLC’S OBJECTION TO THE JOINT STIPULATION RE: SEALING REQUESTS
Case No. 11-CV-01846-LHK

1

additional reason, the Stipulation is contrary to the authority cited by Motorola and the other

2

third parties in their motions to seal briefing.

3

Although the Stipulation states that the “parties will not oppose each other’s efforts to

4

seal the record,” Stipulation, ¶ 5, this provides no protection for Motorola’s highly confidential

5

information at issue, because neither party has moved to seal this information.

6

For these reasons, the Stipulation fails to adequately protect Motorola’s highly

7

confidential trade secret information. Accordingly, Paragraph 5 of the Stipulation should be

8

rejected and Motorola’s Motion to Seal should be granted.

9
10
11

Dated: August 8, 2012

WINSTON & STRAWN LLP

12
13

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

14
15
16
17
18
19

SF:338227.1

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2NONPARTY MOTOROLA MOBILITY LLC’S OBJECTION TO THE JOINT STIPULATION RE: SEALING REQUESTS
Case No. 11-CV-01846-LHK