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

Filing 198

Letter Brief re #191 Order Responding to the Notice of Withdrawal of Bridges & Mavrakakis LLP filed bySamsung Electronics America, Inc., Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A, #2 Exhibit B, #3 Proposed Order)(Related document(s) #191 ) (Maroulis, Victoria) (Filed on 8/31/2011)

quinn emanuel trial lawyers | silicon valley
555 Twin Dolphin Drive, 5th Floor, Redwood Shores, California 94065-2139 | TEL: [phone] FAX: [phone]

WRITER'S DIRECT DIAL NO.
[phone]
WRITER'S INTERNET ADDRESS
[e-mail]

August 31, 2011
VIA E-FILING
Honorable Lucy H. Koh
United States District Court,
Northern District of California
Courtroom 8, 4th Floor
280 South First Street
San Jose, CA 95113
Re:

Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et. al. No. 11-CV-01846-LHK

Your Honor:
This letter is in response to the Court’s August 30, 2011 Order (D.N. 191) directing Samsung to
respond to the filing of the Notice of Withdrawal of Bridges & Mavrakakis LLP (“B&M”).
While Samsung agrees that B&M’s withdrawal moots the need to issue an order disqualifying
B&M from appearing as counsel of record in this case, Samsung still respectfully requests relief
needed to protect its confidential information in the possession of B&M. Samsung sought a
stipulation from Apple regarding any further use of B&M’s confidential information from its
prior representation of Samsung. (Ex. A.) Apple responded by agreeing to certain conditions
while refusing others. (Ex. B.) With respect to the issues on which the parties could not reach
agreement, Samsung respectfully requests that the Court issue an order directing that:
(1) B&M will not provide support services, consult, or participate in any further aspects of this
case or any cases between Apple and Samsung relating to tablet computers and mobile devices;
(2) Apple and its current counsel return to B&M any work product prepared by B&M prior to its
withdrawal; and (3) B&M will share no further work product related to the pending actions
quinn emanuel urquhart & sullivan, llp
LOS ANGELES | 865 South Figueroa Street, 10th Floor, Los Angeles, California 90017-2543 | TEL [phone] FAX [phone]
NEW YORK | 51 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor, New York, New York 10010-1601 | TEL [phone] FAX [phone]
SAN FRANCISCO | 50 California Street, 22nd Floor, San Francisco, California 94111-4788 | TEL [phone] FAX [phone]
CHICAGO | 500 W. Madison Street, Suite 2450, Chicago, Illinois 60661-2510 | TEL [phone] FAX [phone]
LONDON | 16 Old Bailey, London EC4M 7EG, United Kingdom | TEL [phone] FAX [phone]
TOKYO | NBF Hibiya Bldg., 25F, 1-1-7, Uchisaiwai-cho, Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo 100-0011, Japan | TEL [phone] FAX [phone]
MANNHEIM | Erzbergerstraße 5, 68165 Mannheim, Germany | TEL [phone] FAX [phone]

between Apple and Samsung it may have created during its participation in this case with Apple
and its current counsel.
Such an order would clarify the implications of B&M’s withdrawal and stave off any potential
problems that might arise regarding B&M’s continued involvement in the case or issues related
to the case. None of these forms of relief is addressed or mooted by B&M’s formal withdrawal.
For requested relief (1), Apple has refused to commit to B&M’s non-participation in related
cases. As Apple itself noted in the “Related Cases” section of the Joint Case Management
Statement, however, “Counterparts to many of the patents-in-suit are being litigated between the
parties in cases outside the U.S.”—Apple listed 19 such related cases in this statement (D.N.
159). Given the intertwined nature of these cases, B&M’s withdrawal in this case does not moot
the impact of its presence and participation in these related cases.
For requested relief (2) and (3), B&M’s withdrawal cannot erase the taint its conflict imparted to
its work product. Only an order shielding Samsung from the further use of such work product
can ensure that Samsung’s confidential information does not inform Apple’s positions going
forward. See Glaxco Group Ltd. v. Genentech, Inc., 2010 WL 2787917, at *5 (C.D. Cal. July
13, 2010) (holding “[t]he [disqualified] firm shall not transfer any work product…. The
[disqualified] firm is disqualified based on a presumption that it possesses confidential
information … that is material to this case. This presumption also supports a prohibition of
transfer of the [disqualified] firm’s work product to successor counsel”).
Very truly yours,
/s/ Kathleen M. Sullivan
Kathleen M. Sullivan

GENERAL ORDER ATTESTATION
I, Victoria Maroulis, am the ECF user whose ID and password are being used to
file the foregoing document. I hereby attest pursuant to General Order 45.X.B. that concurrence
in the electronic filing of this document has been obtained from Kathleen Sullivan.
/s/ Victoria Maroulis
02198.51855/4328351.4

2