Google Inc. v. Rockstar Consortium US LP et al

Filing 38

First Amended Declaration of DAVID SOCHIA in Support of 30 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Google Inc.'s Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss or Transfer filed byMobileStar Technologies LLC, Rockstar Consortium US LP. (Related document(s) 30 ) (Sochia, David) (Filed on 2/13/2014) Modified on 2/14/2014 (cpS, COURT STAFF).

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Courtland L. Reichman (SBN 268873) creichman@mckoolsmithhennigan.com McKool Smith Hennigan, P.C. 255 Shoreline Drive Suite 510 Redwood Shores, CA 94065 (650) 394-1400 (650) 394-1422 (facsimile) Mike McKool (Pro Hac Vice Application Pending) Douglas A. Cawley (Admitted Pro Hac Vice) Ted Stevenson III (Admitted Pro Hac Vice) David Sochia (Admitted Pro Hac Vice) McKool Smith, P.C. 300 Crescent Court, Suite 1500 Dallas, TX 75201 (214) 978-4000 (214) 978-4044 (facsimile) Attorneys for Defendants Rockstar Consortium U.S. LP and MobileStar Technologies LLC 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 13 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 14 OAKLAND 15 Google, Inc. 16 Plaintiff, 17 vs. 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Rockstar Consortium U.S. LP and MobileStar Technologies LLC Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. 13-cv-5933 HON. CLAUDIA WILKEN FIRST AMENDED DECLARATION OF DAVID SOCHIA IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF GOOGLE INC.’S ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL 1 I, David Sochia, declare: 2 1. I am an attorney with the law firm of McKool Smith P.C., counsel of record for 3 Defendants Rockstar Consortium U.S. LP and MobileStar Technologies LLC (collectively 4 “Rockstar”) in the above-entitled action. I am duly licensed to practice law in the State of Texas. I 5 make this declaration based on my personal knowledge, the record in this action, and matters of 6 public record, and if called upon as a witness, I could and would testify competently as to the matters 7 set forth below. This declaration replaces the declaration filed the morning of February 13, 2014, 8 filed in error. 2. 9 Rockstar is bound by non-disclosure agreements with various non-parties to keep 10 confidential the information contained in certain portions of Google Inc.’s Objection to Defendants’ 11 Motion to Dismiss or Transfer (hereinafter “Objection”). 3. 12 Rockstar is also bound by non-disclosure agreements with various non-parties to keep 13 confidential information contained in certain portions of Rockstar’s Motion to Dismiss, the 14 Declaration of Afzal Dean in Support of Rockstar’s Motion to Dismiss, both cited in the Objection. 4. 15 Details of Rockstar’s licensing negotiations with non-parties, including the identities 16 of entities currently negotiating with Rockstar, is sensitive, confidential and proprietary business 17 information of Rockstar and these non-party entities. Such information is relevant to Rockstar’s 18 licensing and business strategies. Rockstar and these non-party entities will be harmed by public 19 disclosure of this information because the identities of the parties to licensing negotiations with 20 Rockstar and the timing of those negotiations are essential to Rockstar’s business and licensing 21 strategies, as shown by the parties’ execution of non-disclosure agreements. 5. 22 An unredacted copy of Google’s Opposition, along with all supporting materials, and 23 the confidential portions described above, was filed with the Court on February 6, 2014, and an 24 unredacted copy of the Declaration of Afzal Dean in Support of Rockstar’s Motion to Dismiss, along 25 with supporting materials, was attached to the Declaration of Josh Budwin on January 23, 2014. 6. 26 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the 27 foregoing is true and correct, and that this declaration was executed on February 13, 2014, at Dallas, 28 Texas. -2- 1 2 ____________________________ 3 David Sochia 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -3-

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?