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

Filing 894

REPLY (re #885 MOTION Administrative Relief Apples Administrative Motion For Clarification Of April 12 Order ) Reply In Support Of Apples Administrative Motion For Clarification of April 12 Order filed byApple Inc.. (Tucher, Alison) (Filed on 5/1/2012)

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

14

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

15

SAN JOSE DIVISION

16
17

APPLE INC., a California corporation,
Plaintiff,

18
19
20
21
22

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,

Case No.

11-cv-01846-LHK (PSG)

REPLY IN SUPPORT OF
APPLE’S ADMINISTRATIVE
MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION
OF APRIL 12 ORDER
[Local Rule 7-11]
Hon. Paul S. Grewal

23
Defendants.
24
25
26
27
28
REPLY ISO APPLE’S ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION
CASE NO. 11-CV-01846-LHK (PSG)
sf-3139907

1
2
3

Apple respectfully requests the Court’s consideration of the following five reply points in
support of its Administrative Motion for Clarification:
1. An Administrative Motion under Local Rule 7-11 is an appropriate, commonly-used

4

method for requesting clarification of a court order. See, e.g., Millennium TGS, Inc. v. DOES 1-

5

21, Case No. C 11-01739 PSG, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 94397 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 22, 2011);

6

Electrograph Systems, Inc. v. NEC Corp., No. M 07-1827-SI, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14303

7

(N.D. Cal. Feb. 6, 2012). Apple does not seek reconsideration.

8

2. There is a simple explanation for the additional Motorola-related documents now at

9

issue. (See Opp. at 4.) Apple’s production of Motorola documents as discussed in the December

10

22, 2011, Order and underlying papers was limited to documents regarding “three of the patents-

11

at-issue.” (Dkt. No. 536 at 2.) Apple produced the requested documents regarding those three

12

patents in December. Under the April 12 Order, Apple is now required to produce “all court

13

documents” from the Motorola matters, regardless of subject matter. This is a significantly

14

broader scope of production, in part because the Motorola matters involve patents other than the

15

three at issue in the December 22 Order.

16

3. Apple did not previously “waive” the issue of third-party CBI by not raising it earlier.

17

This issue had not arisen previously because Samsung’s motion to compel did not seek

18

production of unredacted documents without consent of the producing parties. Samsung sought

19

materials without third-party CBI, materials with third-party CBI with consent to produce, and

20

redacted information where no consent had been granted. (Samsung March 6, 2012 Mot. at 12.)

21

Samsung’s opposition ignores Apple’s footnote to this effect.

22

4. As soon as the April 12 Order was issued, outside counsel for Apple at six different

23

law firms worked diligently to (1) collect and produce all non-confidential or Apple-CBI-only

24

court documents in all eight cases; (2) analyze the operative Protective Orders in all eight cases to

25

determine in which cases the CBI documents could be produced under the April 12 Order without

26

further consent; (3) identify parties and nonparties whose consent was needed; (4) send notices to

27

such parties and nonparties; and (5) petition the International Trade Commission for authorization

28

to produce documents containing CBI without the consent of the parties who produced those
REPLY ISO APPLE’S ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION
CASE NO. 11-CV-01846-LHK (PSG)
sf-3139907

1

1
2

documents.
5. Most importantly, Samsung’s opposition does not dispute the key fact of our motion—

3

that the ITC Protective Orders contain no exception for court-ordered production of protected

4

material. That undisputed fact is the reason Apple respectfully requests that this Court clarify the

5

intended scope of its April 12th Order. (See, e.g., April 24, 2012 Hrg. Tr. at 19:16-22 (“if there

6

was a problem [complying with the order], you should seek guidance from the Court.”).)

7
8

Dated: May 1, 2012

MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP

9
10
11
12

By:

/s/ Alison M. Tucher
Alison M. Tucher
Attorneys for Plaintiff
APPLE INC.

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
REPLY ISO APPLE’S ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION
CASE NO. 11-CV-01846-LHK (PSG)
sf-3139907

2