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

Filing 820

ORDER by Judge Lucy H. Koh denying #789 Motion to Stay; denying #790 Motion for Relief from Magistrate Judge Grewal's Nondispositive Pretrial Order; finding as moot #800 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; granting #801 Corrected Administrative Motion to File Under Seal (lhklc3S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/15/2013)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

8

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

SAN JOSE DIVISION

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18

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 Nos.: 11-CV-01846-LHK
12-CV-00630-LHK
ORDER DENYING SAMSUNG’S
MOTIONS FOR RELIEF FROM
MAGISTRATE JUDGE GREWAL’S
NONDISPOSITIVE PRETRIAL
ORDERS AND DENYING SAMSUNG’S
MOTION TO STAY

19
Samsung has filed three motions which are the subject of this order: (1) motion for relief
20
from Magistrate Judge Grewal’s nondispositive pretrial order compelling discovery; (2) motion for
21
relief from Magistrate Judge Grewal’s nondispositive pretrial order approving the Nokia-Samsung
22
stipulation; and (3) motion to stay both Magistrate Judge Grewal’s nondispositive pretrial orders
23
pending resolution of Samsung’s motions for relief from these orders and pending the resolution of
24
any petition for writ of mandamus that Samsung may file with the Federal Circuit Court of
25
Appeals. Having considered the submissions of the parties, the relevant law, and the record in this
26
case, the Court DENIES the motions for relief and DENIES the motion to stay.
27
28

1
Case Nos.: 11-CV-01846-LHK, 12-CV-00630-LHK
ORDER DENYING SAMSUNG’S MOTIONS FOR RELIEF FROM MAGISTRATE JUDGE GREWAL’S
NONDISPOSITIVE PRETRIAL ORDERS AND DENYING SAMSUNG’S MOTION TO STAY

1

I.

2

Procedural History
On October 2, 2013, Magistrate Judge Paul Grewal issued a nondispositive pretrial order

3

compelling discovery. ECF No. 2483, Case No. 11-CV-01846 (“Order One”). On October 2,

4

2013, Magistrate Judge Paul Grewal issued a nondispositive pretrial order approving the Nokia-

5

Samsung stipulation. ECF No. 785, Case No. 12-CV-00630 (“Order Two”).

6

On October 7, 2013, Samsung filed three motions: (1) Samsung’s motion for relief from
Order One, ECF No. 2495, Case No. 11-CV-01846 (“Samsung Motion One”); (2) Samsung’s

8

motion for relief from Order Two, ECF No. 790, Case No. 12-CV-00630 (“Samsung Motion

9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

7

Two”); and (3) Samsung’s motion to stay Orders One and Two pending resolution of Samsung’s

10

motions for relief from these orders and pending the resolution of any petition for writ of

11

mandamus Samsung may file, ECF No. 789, Case No. 12-CV-00630; ECF No. 2494, Case No. 11-

12

CV-01846.

13

On October 7, 2013, Samsung accompanied its three motions with a motion to shorten time

14

for briefing on the motions for relief and to stay. ECF No. 788, Case No. 12-CV-00630; ECF No.

15

2493, Case No. 11-CV-01846. In its motion to shorten time, Samsung asked that the Court order

16

Apple to file on October 7, 2013, Apple’s opposition to Samsung’s motion to stay, and to file on

17

October 9, 2013, Apple’s oppositions to Samsung’s motions for relief. ECF No. 2493, Case No.

18

11-CV-01846, at 1. Samsung also waived its replies to Apple’s opposition briefs. ECF No. 788,

19

Case No. 12-CV-00630, at 3.

20

On October 7, 2013, the Court ordered Apple to file its oppositions to all three of

21

Samsung’s motions on October 9, 2013. ECF No. 2498, Case No. 11-CV-1846. In its October 7,

22

2013 Order, the Court stated: “There is no stay of Judge Grewal’s orders while these motions are

23

pending unless otherwise ordered by the Court.” Id. at 2.

24

Apple filed its oppositions to all three Samsung motions on October 9, 2013. ECF No. 800-

25

1, Case No. 12-CV-00630. Non-party Nokia Corporation (“Nokia”) also filed its oppositions on

26

October 9, 2013. ECF Nos. 2500 and 2502, Case No. 11-CV-01846.

27

II.

28

Legal Standards
2

Case Nos.: 11-CV-01846-LHK, 12-CV-00630-LHK
ORDER DENYING SAMSUNG’S MOTIONS FOR RELIEF FROM MAGISTRATE JUDGE GREWAL’S
NONDISPOSITIVE PRETRIAL ORDERS AND DENYING SAMSUNG’S MOTION TO STAY

1
2

A.

Relief from Magistrate Judge’s Order Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 72

The district court may designate any nondispositive pretrial matter to be determined by a
magistrate judge, whose ruling on the matter will be modified or set aside only if “clearly

4

erroneous or contrary to law.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); FED. R. CIV. P. 72(a); Grimes v. City &

5

Cnty. of S.F., 951 F.3d 236, 241 (9th Cir. 1991). Samsung argues that the de novo standard applies

6

to Order One because rulings “regarding privilege” are reviewed de novo. Samsung Motion One at

7

2 (citing Aronson v. McKesson HBOC, Inc., No. 99-CV-20743, 2005 WL 934331 at *3 (N.D. Cal.

8

Mar. 31, 2005)). Samsung is incorrect. In Order One, in contrast to Aronson, Magistrate Judge

9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

3

Grewal did not make any “determinations regarding the scope of the attorney-client privilege” and

10

thus this Court is not reviewing any finding by Magistrate Judge Grewal regarding privilege.

11

Aronson, 2005 WL 934331 at *3.

12

In reviewing for clear error, the district judge may not simply substitute his or her judgment

13

for that of the magistrate judge. See Grimes, 951 F.3d at 241. Rather, a magistrate judge’s

14

nondispositive ruling is clearly erroneous only when the district judge is left with a “definite and

15

firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” Burdick v. Comm’r Internal Rev. Serv., 979

16

F.2d 1369, 1370 (9th Cir. 1992). “[A]ny motion not listed [under §636(b)(1)(A)], nor analogous to

17

a motion listed in this category, falls within the nondispositive group of matters which a magistrate

18

may determine.” Maisonville v. F2 Am., Inc., 902 F.2d 746, 748 (9th Cir. 1990) (citations

19

omitted).

20

B.

21

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 62(c) vests the power to stay an order pending appeal with

Motion for Stay of Magistrate Judge Grewal’s Orders

22

the district court. See FED. R. CIV. P. 62(c). For both the appellate court and the district court, “the

23

factors regulating the issuance of a stay are generally the same: (1) whether the stay applicant has

24

made a strong showing that he is likely to succeed on the merits; (2) whether the applicant will be

25

irreparably injured absent a stay; (3) whether issuance of the stay will substantially injure the other

26

[parties’ interest] in the proceeding; and (4) where the public interest lies.” Hilton v. Braunskill,

27

481 U.S. 770, 776 (1987). Deciding whether to grant a stay of an order pending an appeal is an
3

28

Case Nos.: 11-CV-01846-LHK, 12-CV-00630-LHK
ORDER DENYING SAMSUNG’S MOTIONS FOR RELIEF FROM MAGISTRATE JUDGE GREWAL’S
NONDISPOSITIVE PRETRIAL ORDERS AND DENYING SAMSUNG’S MOTION TO STAY

1

equitable inquiry, and each factor in the analysis need not be given equal weight. Standard Havens

2

Prods. v. Gencor Indus., 897 F.2d 511, 512 (Fed. Cir. 1990).

3

III.

Motions to Seal
In connection with Samsung’s motions for relief, Samsung and Apple have filed

5

administrative motions to file documents under seal. Samsung filed an administrative motion to

6

seal portions of Exhibit A to Susan Estrich’s declaration in support of Samsung’s motions for

7

relief. ECF No. 2496, Case No. 11-CV-01846 (motion to file under seal); ECF No. 2497-1

8

(Exhibit A to Estrich Declaration). The portions Samsung seeks to seal include royalty rates for

9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

4

various licensing agreements to which Apple and Samsung are parties. Id. The Court GRANTS

10

Samsung’s administrative motion to seal, as the Court has already held that “‘pricing terms, royalty

11

rates, and guaranteed minimum payment terms’ of a license agreement” are sealable. ECF No.

12

1649 at 7, 10-11 (quoting In re Elec. Arts, 298 F. App’x 568, 569 (9th Cir. 2008)).

13

Apple also filed an administration motion to seal Exhibit 2 to Mark D. Selwyn’s declaration

14

in support of Apple’s opposition to Samsung’s motions for relief and motion to stay. ECF No. 801,

15

Case No. 12-CV-00630 (motion to file under seal); ECF No. 800-4, Case No. 12-CV-00630

16

(Exhibit 2 to Selwyn declaration). The portions Apple seeks to seal include confidential terms of

17

Apple’s licensing agreements. Id. The Court GRANTS Apple’s motion, as the Court has already

18

held that that “‘pricing terms, royalty rates, and guaranteed minimum payment terms’ of a license

19

agreement” are sealable. See ECF No. 1649, Case No. 11-CV-01846, at 7, 10-11.

20
21
22
23
24
25
26

IV.

Samsung’s Motion for Relief from Order One
Samsung moves for relief from Order One. Samsung Motion One at 1. As explained

below, the Court DENIES Samsung’s motion because the conclusions in Order One are wellsupported, and Order One is not clearly erroneous or contrary to law.
First, the Court summarizes the substance of Order One. In essence, as a result of
Samsung’s alleged violation of the protective order, Magistrate Judge Grewal ordered Samsung to
produce to Apple emails and communications by Samsung employees that would shed light on the

27
28

4
Case Nos.: 11-CV-01846-LHK, 12-CV-00630-LHK
ORDER DENYING SAMSUNG’S MOTIONS FOR RELIEF FROM MAGISTRATE JUDGE GREWAL’S
NONDISPOSITIVE PRETRIAL ORDERS AND DENYING SAMSUNG’S MOTION TO STAY

scope of the violation and to make available for deposition various witnesses by October 16, 2013.

2

Order One at 5. Before mandating this discovery, Magistrate Judge Grewal described the factual

3

circumstances which led him to believe that there may have been a violation. Id. at 2-4. First,

4

Judge Grewal described how Apple had given to Samsung, during discovery, copies of four of

5

Apple’s patent license agreements, all of which were designated “Highly Confidential –Attorney

6

Eyes’ Only” pursuant to the protective order. Id. at 2; ECF No. 687, Case No. 11-CV-01846, at 3

7

(protective order). One of these licenses was a June 2011 license between Apple and Nokia. Order

8

One at 2. During expert discovery, Samsung’s outside counsel, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart &

9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

1

Sullivan, LLP (“Quinn Emanuel”), sent Samsung an expert report which should have redacted, but

10

critically did not, some confidential information regarding Apple’s license agreements. Id.

11

Magistrate Judge Grewal cited how Quinn Emanuel then posted that report “on an FTP site that

12

was accessible by Samsung personnel” and that the information was also “sent, over several

13

different occasions, to over fifty Samsung employees, including high-ranking licensing executives.

14

Specifically, on at least four occasions between March 24, 2012 and December 21, 2012,

15

Samsung’s outside counsel emailed a copy of some version of the report to Samsung employees, as

16

well as various counsel representing Samsung in courts and jurisdictions outside the United

17

States.” Id. at 3.

18

Critically, Magistrate Judge Grewal went on to describe how a declaration from Nokia’s

19

Chief Intellectual Property Officer noted that in June 2013, during a meeting between Samsung and

20

Nokia licensing executives, Dr. Seungho Ahn, a Samsung executive who leads the Intellectual

21

Property Center of Samsung Electronics, see ECF No. 1843, Case No. 11-CV-01846, at 3547:17-

22

20, “informed Nokia that the terms of the Apple-Nokia license were known to him.” Order One at

23

3. Magistrate Judge Grewal wrote that according to the declaration, “Dr. Ahn stated that Apple

24

had produced the Apple-Nokia license in its litigation with Samsung, and that Samsung’s outside

25

counsel had provided his team with the terms of the Apple-Nokia license. [The declaration]

26

recounts that to prove to Nokia that he knew the confidential terms of the Apple-Nokia license, Dr.

27

Ahn recited the terms of the license, and even went so far as to tell Nokia that ‘all information

28

5
Case Nos.: 11-CV-01846-LHK, 12-CV-00630-LHK
ORDER DENYING SAMSUNG’S MOTIONS FOR RELIEF FROM MAGISTRATE JUDGE GREWAL’S
NONDISPOSITIVE PRETRIAL ORDERS AND DENYING SAMSUNG’S MOTION TO STAY

1

leaks.’ [The declaration] also reports that Dr. Ahn and Samsung then proceeded to use his

2

knowledge of the terms of the Apple-Nokia license to gain an unfair advantage in their negotiations

3

with Nokia, by asserting that the Apple-Nokia terms should dictate terms of a Samsung-Nokia

4

license.” Id.

5

After describing these events, Magistrate Judge Grewal noted that Samsung had provided
insufficient information to rebut this declaration, as Samsung had not provided any sworn

7

testimony by Dr. Ahn or any evidence regarding other uses by Samsung of the four Apple licensing

8

agreements, despite acknowledging that “dozens of individuals at Samsung and its other counsel

9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

6

have knowledge of confidential license terms that they had no right to access.” Id. Magistrate

10

Judge Grewal further noted that at the hearing on Apple’s motion for sanctions for Samsung’s

11

alleged violation of the protective order, Samsung’s counsel denied any violation and was unable

12

to provide even basic information about who had and now has access to Apple’s confidential

13

information. Id. at 3-4.

14

Because Magistrate Judge Grewal could not determine whether sanctions were appropriate

15

without more information, he ordered Samsung to produce to Apple emails and communications

16

sent or received by Samsung employees who received the confidential information, and to make

17

available for deposition Dr. Ahn; a witness to “speak to the dissemination of and use by Samsung

18

of the confidential information, including the use of the confidential information in any proceeding

19

before the United States International Trade Commission and in any court or jurisdiction outside

20

the United States”; and “[u]p to five additional Samsung employees” who could address any

21

communications they have had regarding Apple’s licenses. Id. at 5.

22

Samsung’s motion for relief from Order One raises the following three arguments: (1)

23

Order One would “improperly abrogate privilege and work-product protection,” (2) Order One

24

may “require Samsung to violate other protective orders,” and (3) Order One’s “scope of

25

compelled information is grossly overbroad.” Samsung Motion One at 2-5. The Court addresses

26

each of these arguments in turn.

27
28

6
Case Nos.: 11-CV-01846-LHK, 12-CV-00630-LHK
ORDER DENYING SAMSUNG’S MOTIONS FOR RELIEF FROM MAGISTRATE JUDGE GREWAL’S
NONDISPOSITIVE PRETRIAL ORDERS AND DENYING SAMSUNG’S MOTION TO STAY

1

Samsung’s first argument is that Order One is contrary to law because it either “ignore[d]

2

Samsung’s objections based on attorney-client privilege and work-product protection” or “sub

3

silentio rejected Samsung’s privilege and work product assertions.” Samsung Motion One at 2.

4

Samsung’s argument lacks merit.

5

First, Magistrate Judge Grewal did not make any ruling on privilege, either on the record at
the hearing or in Order One. Citing one of Magistrate Judge Grewal’s statements at the hearing,

7

Samsung argues that Judge Grewal suggested that allowing Samsung’s e-discovery third party

8

vendor Stroz Friedberg to access the documents waived the attorney-client privilege. Samsung

9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

6

Motion One at 4 (citing Hearing Transcript, ECF No. 2485, Case No. 11-CV-01846, at 41-42

10

which is a statement by Magistrate Judge Grewal: “You are telling me [Stroz is] independent on

11

the one hand, and on the other hand you are saying you can disclose all sorts of privilege and work

12

product information to them without any waiver [of privilege] whatsoever.”) The Court finds that

13

this statement does not constitute a ruling on privilege and does not provide a basis upon which to

14

infer that Order One sub silentio found a waiver of privilege. Samsung’s claim that Order One

15

abrogates Samsung’s claim for privilege or applies the crime-fraud exception to privilege, see

16

Samsung Motion One at 2-3, is unfounded because Magistrate Judge Grewal did not issue any

17

privilege ruling.

18

Second, contrary to Samsung’s claim, Magistrate Judge Grewal did not ignore Samsung’s

19

objections based on privilege. Samsung appears to have asserted broad, blanket privilege

20

objections that were not tied to any specific document or testimony. Thus, Magistrate Judge

21

Grewal was under no obligation to issue prospective, broad, blanket privilege rulings not tied to

22

any specific document or testimony. Moreover, Samsung has cited no authority requiring

23

Magistrate Judge Grewal to do so.

24

Finally, and most importantly, Samsung may assert privilege objections during the course

25

of the compelled discovery and follow the normal protocol regarding privilege disputes, as set forth

26

in the protective order. See ECF No. 687, Case No. 11-CV-01846, at 27-28. Any court rulings on

27

privilege disputes will be decided according to the protocol set forth in the protective order. Thus,

28

7
Case Nos.: 11-CV-01846-LHK, 12-CV-00630-LHK
ORDER DENYING SAMSUNG’S MOTIONS FOR RELIEF FROM MAGISTRATE JUDGE GREWAL’S
NONDISPOSITIVE PRETRIAL ORDERS AND DENYING SAMSUNG’S MOTION TO STAY

1

the Court need not reach the question of whether there is any basis for waiver of privilege at this

2

time.

3

For the reasons stated above, the Court rejects Samsung’s first argument that Order One

4

improperly abrogated privilege and work product protection. The Court finds that Order One is not

5

clearly erroneous or contrary to law on this basis.
Samsung’s second argument is similarly unavailing. Samsung objects to providing

7

information and testimony about the use of confidential information in proceedings before the ITC

8

or other courts on the grounds that “[t]hese proceedings are subject to their own protective orders.”

9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

6

Samsung Motion One at 4. The Court is not persuaded. To the extent that these other proceedings

10

have their own protective orders, the Court finds that the interests underlying Order One, namely

11

investigating and remedying alleged protective order violations and preventing and deterring

12

ongoing or future protective order violations in this case, outweigh any possible dilemma Samsung

13

will face by having “to choose between coordinate courts.” Samsung Motion One at 4 (citation

14

omitted). Samsung cites no law in the Ninth Circuit that holds that a magistrate judge or district

15

judge may not order discovery regarding information that is allegedly covered by a protective order

16

in another tribunal. Thus, the Court rejects Samsung’s second argument and finds that Order One

17

is not clearly erroneous or contrary to law on this basis.

18

Samsung’s last argument is that Order One is “overly broad” because Order One requires

19

Samsung to produce all emails and communications relating not just to the Apple-Nokia license

20

that was apparently disclosed to Samsung employees, but also to Apple’s other three license

21

agreements that Apple produced to Samsung during discovery. Samsung Motion One at 5.

22

Samsung claims that the “millions of dollars” Samsung will spend to comply with Order One

23

would be disproportionate to the benefit of this discovery in terms of shedding light on the alleged

24

violation of the protective order. Id. at 1, 5. The Court rejects Samsung’s argument, as Magistrate

25

Judge Grewal’s decision regarding the scope of the discovery was not clearly erroneous or contrary

26

to law. On the contrary, Order One is a highly appropriate and necessary mechanism for

27

determining answers to basic questions that Samsung has been unable to provide thus far. Namely,

28

8
Case Nos.: 11-CV-01846-LHK, 12-CV-00630-LHK
ORDER DENYING SAMSUNG’S MOTIONS FOR RELIEF FROM MAGISTRATE JUDGE GREWAL’S
NONDISPOSITIVE PRETRIAL ORDERS AND DENYING SAMSUNG’S MOTION TO STAY

the discovery compelled by Order One has been necessitated by Samsung’s deficient investigation

2

into the improper disclosures for the past three months. Quinn Emanuel was placed on notice of its

3

alleged violation of the protective order when Nokia filed a motion for a protective order on July 1,

4

2013, along with the accompanying declaration from Nokia’s Chief Intellectual Property Officer

5

which highlighted how Dr. Ahn had told Nokia that Dr. Ahn had knowledge of the terms of the

6

Apple-Nokia licensing agreement. ECF No. 647, Case No. 12-CV-00630; Hearing Transcript,

7

ECF No. 2485, Case No. 11-CV-01846, at 8, 10, 35, 50. Despite the fact that three months had

8

passed since the alleged violation came to Quinn Emanuel’s attention, Samsung and Quinn

9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

1

Emanuel still had no answers for Magistrate Judge Grewal at the hearing regarding the extent of

10

the disclosures, to whom they were made and what was disclosed, and how the disclosed

11

information has been used and is currently being used. See generally Hearing Transcript, ECF No.

12

2485, Case No. 11-CV-01846, at 24-70. As Magistrate Judge Grewal noted, “[E]ven though three

13

months [have passed], Samsung is unable to provide evidence on even the most basic questions,

14

such as: who has now had access to the confidential licensing information? For what purpose?

15

When? Where? How? Has Samsung relied on any of the confidential information in taking any

16

position before any other court or jurisdiction? Exactly what steps has Samsung taken to prevent

17

dissemination and use of the confidential information in the future? In each instance, the only

18

response available seems to be, ‘We’re working on it.’” Order One at 4. Samsung’s lack of

19

information after three months is inexcusable, and necessitates Court-supervised discovery.

20

Further, Magistrate Judge Grewal did not err by requiring discovery regarding the other

21

three Apple license agreements. Apple’s counsel claims that Quinn Emanuel failed to redact

22

information relating to the other three licenses in Quinn Emanuel’s communications with

23

Samsung’s employees.1 Hearing Transcript, ECF. No. 2485, Case No. 11-CV-01846, at 11. In

24

1

25
26
27
28

Samsung’s exhibits to its motions for relief show that Quinn Emanuel did in fact improperly
disclose information about the other Apple licenses to Samsung’s employees. Exhibit A to Susan
Estrich’s declaration in support of Samsung’s motions for relief is the expert report with the
confidential information that was sent to Samsung’s employees. ECF No. 2497-1, Case No. 11CV-01846 (Exhibit A to Estrich Declaration); ECF No. 2497, Case No. 11-CV-01846, at 1 (Estrich
noting that this report was the “incompletely redacted report” sent to Samsung employees). That
9

Case Nos.: 11-CV-01846-LHK, 12-CV-00630-LHK
ORDER DENYING SAMSUNG’S MOTIONS FOR RELIEF FROM MAGISTRATE JUDGE GREWAL’S
NONDISPOSITIVE PRETRIAL ORDERS AND DENYING SAMSUNG’S MOTION TO STAY

1

response, Samsung has not provided the Court with “any sworn declarations from its employees, or

2

even its lawyers, stating that no breach occurred with respect” to these other licenses. Apple Opp.

3

at 9. Moreover, at the hearing Samsung was unable to answer Judge Grewal’s questions about the

4

full extent of Quinn Emanuel’s improper disclosures to Samsung’s employees. Thus, Magistrate

5

Judge Grewal’s decision to require Samsung to produce all communications relating to Apple’s

6

other licenses was eminently reasonable, as it was intended to assist the Court in discovering the

7

extent to which information about these other license agreements had been disclosed to and used

8

by Samsung employees or others, in violation of the protective order.

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

9

Of further concern to the Court is that not only is there evidence that Samsung employees

10

received confidential information and used it in their licensing negotiations with Nokia in violation

11

of the protective order, but also this information may have been used by Samsung’s lawyers in

12

other courts. Apple’s counsel noted at the hearing that “information from these disclosures was

13

used to craft arguments at the ITC . . . . The ITC issued an opinion on the licensing negotiations

14

that specifically accepted Samsung’s argument in which this confidential information was used.”

15

Hearing Transcript, ECF No. 2485, Case No. 11-CV-01846, at 70. Such use of this information, if

16

true, is particularly egregious, given that the protective order states that “Protected Material

17

designated under the terms of this Protective Order shall be used by a Receiving Party solely for

18

this case, and shall not be used directly or indirectly for any other purpose whatsoever” and that

19

“[a]ll Protected Material shall be used solely for this case or any related appellate proceeding, and

20

not for any other purpose whatsoever, including without limitation any other litigation, patent

21

prosecution or acquisition, patent reexamination or reissue proceedings . . . .” ECF No. 687, Case

22

No. 11-CV-01846, at 3, 5.

23

In light of the fact that Samsung has been unable to produce satisfactory answers to any

24

questions about the extent and use of the improper disclosures despite having three months to

25

report contains unredacted information not only relating to the Apple-Nokia license agreement, but
also confidential information about the other Apple licenses. ECF No. 2497-1, Case No. 11-CV01846, at ¶¶ 89, 191-193.

26
27
28

10
Case Nos.: 11-CV-01846-LHK, 12-CV-00630-LHK
ORDER DENYING SAMSUNG’S MOTIONS FOR RELIEF FROM MAGISTRATE JUDGE GREWAL’S
NONDISPOSITIVE PRETRIAL ORDERS AND DENYING SAMSUNG’S MOTION TO STAY

1

investigate, this Court finds that it was necessary for Magistrate Judge Grewal to order Court-

2

supervised discovery and that the scope of his order was not “overly broad.”

3

For all these reasons, Magistrate Judge Grewal’s decision to require Court-supervised

4

discovery was not clearly erroneous or contrary to law, and the Court DENIES Samsung’s motion

5

for relief from Order One.

6

V.

7

Samsung’s Motion for Relief from Order Two
Samsung moves the Court to vacate Order Two. Samsung Motion Two at 1. As set forth

below, Samsung’s motion is DENIED because the Court finds that Order Two is not clearly

9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

8

erroneous or contrary to law.

10

In Order Two, Magistrate Judge Grewal adopted a stipulation entered between Nokia and

11

Samsung. Order Two at 1. After Nokia filed its July 1, 2013 motion for a protective order because

12

of Quinn Emanuel’s disclosure of the confidential terms of the Apple-Nokia licensing agreement to

13

Samsung’s employees, Nokia withdrew its motion, and Samsung and Nokia filed a stipulation,

14

which Magistrate Judge Grewal granted in full, providing that Samsung would investigate the

15

disclosures. The stipulation provided that Samsung would hire a third party computer forensics

16

firm, Stroz Friedberg, to “conduct an independent audit of the files of the Samsung employees

17

identified [by Samsung] as recipients of the Disclosed Information,” for the purpose of collecting

18

and preserving any documents within Samsung evidencing “(i) receipt or dissemination of the

19

Disclosed Information and/or (ii) any use of, or reference to, the Disclosed Information by

20

Samsung.” Id. at ¶ 5. The stipulation also noted that Stroz Friedberg would “prepare a log of all

21

instances in which the Disclosed Information was disseminated or in which the Disclosed

22

Information was referenced or used in any Documents by Samsung employees,” including by

23

identifying “the author or sender and all recipients of any identified Documents; the date and time;

24

the subject line and a description of the subject matter of the Document sufficient to understand the

25

nature of the use of or reference to the Disclosed Information.” Id. at ¶ 7. The stipulation also

26

states that “[n]othing contained in this Stipulation will constitute a waiver of any claim of attorney-

27
28

11
Case Nos.: 11-CV-01846-LHK, 12-CV-00630-LHK
ORDER DENYING SAMSUNG’S MOTIONS FOR RELIEF FROM MAGISTRATE JUDGE GREWAL’S
NONDISPOSITIVE PRETRIAL ORDERS AND DENYING SAMSUNG’S MOTION TO STAY

1

client privilege, attorney work product or other claims of confidentiality, and Nokia will not argue

2

that this Stipulation constitutes any such waiver . . . .” Id. at ¶ 11.

3

Samsung seeks relief from Order Two granting the stipulation on the grounds that the

4

stipulation is (1) “redundant” of Order One, and (2) would “put Samsung’s privileged documents at

5

risk” by “giv[ing] Apple a basis to argue (incorrectly) that Samsung has waived the privilege by

6

disclosing documents to Stroz.” Samsung Motion Two at 2-3, 5. For reasons provided below, the

7

Court rejects Samsung’s arguments.
The Court first addresses Samsung’s claim that Order Two should be vacated because “the

9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

8

processes set forth in the stipulation are wholly subsumed by the requirements in [] [Order One].”

10

Samsung Motion Two at 5. While there may be some overlap, the stipulation and thus Order Two

11

impose obligations on Samsung above and beyond what is required in Order One. For example,

12

the stipulation requires Stroz Friedberg to use computer forensics to audit the files of Samsung

13

employees. Order Two at ¶¶ 5-7. Order One does not require a forensic audit. Furthermore, the

14

stipulation and Order Two require that Stroz Friedberg “conduct an independent review of Quinn

15

Emanuel’s investigation and collection process as is necessary to ensure that Quinn Emanuel’s

16

search of its own firm Documents is complete and accurate.” Id. at ¶ 8. Order One does not

17

require such a review of Quinn Emanuel’s search.

18

The stipulation and Order Two also require that a partner from Quinn Emanuel “provide

19

Nokia with a sworn statement . . . identifying any further dissemination of the Disclosed

20

Information” by other Samsung law firms and “also explain the reasons why the Disclosed

21

Information was forwarded” to the firms. Id. at ¶ 4. Order One does not require such a sworn

22

statement. In the stipulation and Order Two, Samsung agrees that “[i]f Nokia seeks the courts [sic]

23

assistance to enforce the stipulation or resolve disputes regarding its implementation, Nokia shall

24

be entitled to its reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs associated with the any [sic] such meritorious

25

motions.” Id. at ¶ 10. Order One does not provide for such fees and costs.

26
27
28

Samsung negotiated for, agreed to, and jointly proposed the procedures set forth in the
stipulation that Magistrate Judge Grewal adopted in full in Order Two. ECF No. 798, Case No. 1212
Case Nos.: 11-CV-01846-LHK, 12-CV-00630-LHK
ORDER DENYING SAMSUNG’S MOTIONS FOR RELIEF FROM MAGISTRATE JUDGE GREWAL’S
NONDISPOSITIVE PRETRIAL ORDERS AND DENYING SAMSUNG’S MOTION TO STAY

1

CV-630, at 8. Samsung has not provided any valid basis to vacate Samsung’s own stipulation.

2

Magistrate Judge Grewal’s Order adopting Samsung’s stipulation which imposes additional

3

obligations beyond Order One was not clearly erroneous or contrary to law.

4

Samsung’s second argument is that “the stipulation should be vacated to protect privilege.”
Samsung Motion Two at 5. In support of its argument, Samsung claims Magistrate Judge Grewal

6

“materially altered one of the fundamental conditions upon which the Stipulation was based

7

through his statements at the hearing that it may not preserve privilege with respect to non-

8

signatories such as Apple.” Id. Samsung cites Magistrate Judge Grewal’s question at the hearing

9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

5

that “[Nokia] may have agreed [to the stipulation, which provides that Samsung does not waive any

10

privilege by giving the third party company Stroz Friedberg access to documents], but what does

11

that say vis a vi[s] other parties.” Id. at 4 (citing Hearing Transcript, ECF No. 2485, Case No. 11-

12

CV-01846, at 41). The Court rejects Samsung’s argument that this Court must vacate Order Two

13

in order to protect the attorney-client privilege Samsung claims it has over certain documents.

14

Samsung’s argument boils down to an assertion that Magistrate Judge Grewal’s question at the

15

hearing means Samsung has lost its opportunity to assert that it has privilege over documents vis-à-

16

vis Apple. This argument fails for two reasons. First, Magistrate Judge Grewal’s question does

17

not constitute an actual ruling on the issue of whether Samsung’s transmission of documents to

18

Stroz Friedberg will constitute a waiver of any assertions of privilege Samsung wants to advance

19

against Apple. Thus, Samsung will still have the chance to argue that its documents are privileged

20

vis-à-vis Apple even after giving information to Stroz Friedberg pursuant to the stipulation.

21

Second, to the extent that Magistrate Judge Grewal’s question suggests he may eventually rule

22

against Samsung by finding waiver of privilege vis-à-vis Apple, Samsung was on notice when it

23

entered the stipulation that the stipulation’s language only stated that Nokia, not any other party

24

like Apple, could not argue waiver of privilege based on Samsung’s transfer of documents to Stroz

25

Friedberg.

26
27
28

Because the Court finds that Magistrate Judge Grewal’s order is not clearly erroneous or
contrary to law, the Court DENIES Samsung’s motion for relief from Order Two.
13
Case Nos.: 11-CV-01846-LHK, 12-CV-00630-LHK
ORDER DENYING SAMSUNG’S MOTIONS FOR RELIEF FROM MAGISTRATE JUDGE GREWAL’S
NONDISPOSITIVE PRETRIAL ORDERS AND DENYING SAMSUNG’S MOTION TO STAY

1
2

VI.

Samsung’s Motion to Stay Orders One and Two
Pursuant to Local Rule 7-11, Samsung moves the Court to stay Order One and Order Two

pending resolution of Samsung’s motions for relief from these orders, and pending resolution of

4

any petition for a writ of mandamus to the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals. ECF No. 789, Case

5

No. 12-CV-00630; ECF No. 2494, Case No. 11-CV-01846. “[T]he factors regulating the issuance

6

of a stay are generally the same: (1) whether the stay applicant has made a strong showing that he

7

is likely to succeed on the merits; (2) whether the applicant will be irreparably injured absent a

8

stay; (3) whether issuance of the stay will substantially injure the other [parties’ interest] in the

9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

3

proceeding; and (4) where the public interest lies.” Hilton v. Braunskill, 481 U.S. 770, 776 (1987).

10

The Court hereby DENIES a stay pending resolution of any petition for a writ of mandamus

11

that Samsung may file with the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals. First, the Court finds that, for the

12

reasons set forth above, Samsung has not shown a likelihood of succeeding on the merits of its

13

motions, which is the first element of obtaining a stay. Id. at 776. Second, while Samsung claims

14

it will face “irreparable harm” absent the stay because Samsung will have to disclose privileged

15

information, which cannot be undone, the Court disagrees. Samsung will have the opportunity to

16

assert privilege as to specific documents and testimony, and Samsung may seek a stay from the

17

Federal Circuit if Samsung files a petition for writ of mandamus.

18

Third, an issuance of a stay will “substantially injure” the interests of all parties whose

19

confidential information Quinn Emanuel improperly disclosed to Samsung’s employees. These

20

parties’ interests require the determination of the full extent of the improper disclosures and the full

21

extent of the improper uses of the improper disclosures and the immediate termination and

22

remedying of such improper disclosures and uses.

23

Furthermore, a stay is not in the public interest. To preserve the integrity of protective

24

orders, which are essential to all litigation, the Court must act swiftly in ensuring that protective

25

orders are complied with and that violations are dealt with appropriately. Delaying such action

26

may undermine the authority of the Court and litigants’ confidence in our judicial system. See

27

Valdez v. City & Cnty. of Denver, 878 F.2d 1285, 1289 (10th Cir. 1989) (noting that the public has

28

14
Case Nos.: 11-CV-01846-LHK, 12-CV-00630-LHK
ORDER DENYING SAMSUNG’S MOTIONS FOR RELIEF FROM MAGISTRATE JUDGE GREWAL’S
NONDISPOSITIVE PRETRIAL ORDERS AND DENYING SAMSUNG’S MOTION TO STAY

1

an interest in enforcing court orders because that is “essential to the effective functioning of our

2

judicial process”).

3

Finally, the public and Apple have a strong interest in having the two Apple v. Samsung

4

cases proceed to a decision on the merits and to not have unresolved alleged protective order

5

violations pending after the trial in these two cases. The damages retrial in the first case, Case No.

6

11-CV-1846, will begin on November 12, 2013, and the pre-trial hearings in this case are on

7

October 10 and 17, 2013. The summary judgment hearing in the second case, Case No. 12-CV-

8

00630, will be on December 12, 2013, and trial will begin in that case in March 2014.

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

9

For the reasons set forth above, the Court DENIES Samsung’s motion to stay Orders One

10

and Two.

11

VII.

12

Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Samsung’s motions for relief and DENIES

13

Samsung’s motion to stay.

14

IT IS SO ORDERED.

15

Dated: October 15, 2013

_________________________________
LUCY H. KOH
United States District Judge

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

15
Case Nos.: 11-CV-01846-LHK, 12-CV-00630-LHK
ORDER DENYING SAMSUNG’S MOTIONS FOR RELIEF FROM MAGISTRATE JUDGE GREWAL’S
NONDISPOSITIVE PRETRIAL ORDERS AND DENYING SAMSUNG’S MOTION TO STAY