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

Filing 599

MOTION for Protective Order Apple's Motion for Entry of Protective Order Regarding Disclosure and Use of Discovery Materials filed by Apple Inc.. Motion Hearing set for 1/18/2012 02:00 PM before Magistrate Judge Paul Singh Grewal. Responses due by 1/13/2012. (Attachments: #1 McElhinny Declaration, #2 Exhibit A, #3 Exhibit B, #4 Mazza Declaration, #5 Exhibit A, #6 Maselli Declaration, #7 Exhibit A, #8 Exhibit B, #9 Exhibit C, #10 Exhibit D)(Jacobs, Michael) (Filed on 1/10/2012)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

HAROLD J. MCELHINNY (CA SBN 66781)
[e-mail]
MICHAEL A. JACOBS (CA SBN 111664)
[e-mail]
JENNIFER LEE TAYLOR (CA SBN 161368)
[e-mail]
ALISON M. TUCHER (CA SBN 171363)
[e-mail]
RICHARD S.J. HUNG (CA SBN 197425)
[e-mail]
JASON R. BARTLETT (CA SBN 214530)
[e-mail]
MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
425 Market Street
San Francisco, California 94105-2482
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

WILLIAM F. LEE
[e-mail]
WILMER CUTLER PICKERING
HALE AND DORR LLP
60 State Street
Boston, MA 02109
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
MARK D. SELWYN (SBN 244180)
[e-mail]
WILMER CUTLER PICKERING
HALE AND DORR LLP
950 Page Mill Road
Palo Alto, California 94304
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

10
11

Attorneys for Plaintiff and
Counterclaim-Defendant APPLE INC.

12
13
14

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

15

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

16

SAN JOSE DIVISION

17

APPLE INC.,

18
19
20
21
22

Case No.
Plaintiff,

v.
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.,

11-cv-01846-LHK (PSG)

DECLARATION OF SAMUEL J.
MASELLI IN SUPPORT OF
MOTION FOR ENTRY OF
PROTECTIVE ORDER
REGARDING DISCLOSURE AND
USE OF DISCOVERY
MATERIALS

23
Defendants.
24
25
26
27
28
MASELLI DECLARATION ISO APPLE’S MOTION FOR ENTRY OF
11-CV-01846-LHK (PSG)
sf-3091573

PROTECTIVE ORDER

1

I, Samuel J. Maselli, declare as follows:

2

1.

I am Counsel at Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP (“WilmerHale”), and

3

represent Apple Inc. in the above-captioned matter. I have personal knowledge of the facts set

4

forth below, and if called upon as a witness, I would and could competently testify thereto.

5

2.

The negotiations between Apple and Samsung regarding a stipulated protective

6

order lasted for well over three months. On multiple occasions during the parties’ weekly meet

7

and confer calls, Apple asked Samsung to discuss the finalization of a stipulated protective order,

8

but Samsung was repeatedly unprepared to do so. In light of the parties’ production of millions

9

of pages of confidential documents in proceedings before the U.S. International Trade

10

Commission designated as “Confidential Business Information,” Apple proposed a single-tier

11

Protective Order Regarding Disclosure and Use of Discovery Materials (“Protective Order”) that,

12

among other things, creates one confidentiality designation—“Confidential—Attorneys’ Eyes

13

Only.” Apple’s proposed Protective Order also provided, among other things, a separate

14

confidentiality designation for highly confidential and proprietary source code produced in this

15

action, as well as specific provisions for the use and treatment of such data. A true and correct

16

copy of Apple’s proposed Protective Order is attached hereto as Exhibit A.

17

3.

On or around December 20, 2011, I spoke with Samsung’s counsel Diane Hutnyan

18

of Quinn Emanuel by telephone. During my call with Ms. Hutnyan, we were able to resolve the

19

remaining issues related to the proposed Protective Order and to reach agreement on the form of

20

that proposed order. Thereafter, on December 22 and 23, 2011, I transmitted to Ms. Hutnyan and

21

Samsung’s other counsel of record a copy of the agreed-upon protective order, along with a brief

22

cover letter for the purposes of the submission. A true and correct copy of that e-mail

23

correspondence to Ms. Hutnyan and the accompanying attachments are attached hereto as

24

Exhibits B and C.

25

4.

On December 27, 2011, Ms. Hutnyan responded by e-mail indicating that “recent

26

events” had caused Samsung to reconsider its options with respect to the Protective Order. The e-

27

mail stated that Samsung desired a protective order that included a “Confidential” designation in

28

addition to the agreed-upon “Confidential—Attorneys’ Eyes Only” designation. Ms. Hutnyan’s
MASELLI DECLARATION ISO APPLE’S MOTION FOR ENTRY OF PROTECTIVE ORDER
11-CV-01846-LHK (PSG)
sf-3091573

1

1

e-mail attached a revised Protective Order that included such a “Confidential” designation. A

2

true and correct copy of Ms. Hutnyan’s December 27, 2011 e-mail and accompanying attachment

3

are attached hereto as Exhibit D.

4
5
6

I declare under penalty of perjury of the laws of the United States that the foregoing is true
and correct. Executed on this 10th day of January, 2012 at Palo Alto, California.

7
8
9

/s/ Samuel J. Maselli___________
Samuel J. Maselli

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
MASELLI DECLARATION ISO APPLE’S MOTION FOR ENTRY OF PROTECTIVE ORDER
11-CV-01846-LHK (PSG)
sf-3091573

2

1
2

ATTESTATION OF E-FILED SIGNATURE
I, Michael A. Jacobs, am the ECF User whose ID and password are being used to file this

3

Declaration. In compliance with General Order 45, X.B., I hereby attest that Samuel J. Maselli

4

has concurred in this filing.

5

Dated: January 10, 2012

/s/ Michael A. Jacobs
Michael A. Jacobs

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
MASELLI DECLARATION ISO APPLE’S MOTION FOR ENTRY OF PROTECTIVE ORDER
11-CV-01846-LHK (PSG)
sf-3091573

3