Samsung Motion To Compel Apple To Provide Information Regarding Public Disclosure of Confidential Information

Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document3009 Filed03/05/14 Page1 of 15
1 QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP Charles K. Verhoeven (Cal. Bar No. 170151) 2 charlesverhoeven@quinnemanuel.com 50 California Street, 22nd Floor 3 San Francisco, California 94111 Telephone: (415) 875-6600 4 Facsimile: (415) 875-6700 5 Kathleen M. Sullivan (Cal. Bar No. 242261) kathleensullivan@quinnemanuel.com 6 Kevin P.B. Johnson (Cal. Bar No. 177129) kevinjohnson@quinnemanuel.com 7 Victoria F. Maroulis (Cal. Bar No. 202603) victoriamaroulis@quinnemanuel.com th 8 555 Twin Dolphin Drive 5 Floor Redwood Shores, California 94065 9 Telephone: (650) 801-5000 Facsimile: (650) 801-5100 10 William C. Price (Bar No. 108542) 11 williamprice@quinnemanuel.com Michael T. Zeller (Cal. Bar No. 196417) 12 michaelzeller@quinnemanuel.com 865 S. Figueroa St., 10th Floor 13 Los Angeles, California 90017 Telephone: (213) 443-3000 14 Facsimile: (213) 443-3100 15 Attorneys for SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS 16 AMERICA, INC. and SAMSUNG TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA, LLC 17 18 19 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SAN JOSE DIVISION CASE NO. 11-cv-01846-LHK SAMSUNGS AMENDED NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL APPLE TO PROVIDE INFORMATION REGARDING ITS PUBLIC DISCLOSURES OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION Date: Time: Judge: Place: April 8, 2014 10:00 am Hon. Paul S. Grewal Courtroom 5, 4th Floor
20 APPLE INC., a California corporation, 21 22 vs. Plaintiff,
23 SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., a Korean business entity; SAMSUNG 24 ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., a New York corporation; SAMSUNG 25 TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, 26 Defendants. 27 28
Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK SAMSUNGS AMENDED MOTION TO COMPEL APPLE TO PROVIDE INFORMATION REGARDING ITS PUBLIC DISCLOSURES OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
NOTICE OF MOTION TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on April 8, 2014, at 10:00 a.m., or as soon thereafter as this matter may be heard in the above entitled Court, located at 280 South 1st Street, San Jose, CA 95113, Defendants Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., and Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC (collectively, Samsung) hereby move pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37 for an order to compel Apple Inc. (Apple) to provide information and transparency regarding its system for protecting confidential business information (CBI) in compliance with the protective order, including the circumstances surrounding Apples October 2013 public filing of CBI concerning certain terms of the Apple-Nokia and Apple-NEC licenses, and its subsequent filing of Samsungs and others CBI, during the time when Apple was seeking sanctions for protective order violations against Samsung. The requested information is
relevant to determine whether Apple itself has violated the protective order, and whether further remedial action by Samsung, including document production and potentially sanctions, is necessary. The information is independently relevant to determine whether the fees and costs to
be awarded to Apple and Nokia in connection with the recently-concluded protective order proceedings against Samsung should be reduced, because a full award would be unjust in these circumstances. Despite several meet and confer efforts, Apple persists in refusing to provide the
requested information. RELIEF REQUESTED Samsung respectfully requests that the Court order Apple to provide Rule 30(b)(6) deposition testimony and a sworn declaration regarding the following subjects: 1. Apples system for protecting CBI in compliance with the protective order, including the names and titles of the persons involved in the October 2013 inadvertent disclosure and what each of them did as part of Apples multi-level review process for the particular filing at issue, and whether that system allowed competitors CBI to be distributed within Apple and/or publicly in October 2013 and thereafter; 2. Whether Apple undertook an investigation of possible earlier disclosures of CBI (such as
Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK -iiSAMSUNGS AMENDED MOTION TO COMPEL APPLE TO PROVIDE INFORMATION REGARDING ITS PUBLIC DISCLOSURES OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
the October 2013 disclosure) after it learned of its November 2013 disclosures, and whether Apples knowledge of those November 2013 disclosures caused Apple to modify its system to avoid such disclosures in the future; 3. The investigation Apple performed in February 2014, after it claims to have learned of the October 2013 disclosure, including (a) whether Apple or other persons not authorized by the protective order received, disseminated or used the CBI, (b) whether Samsung was promptly informed of this and other disclosures, (c) whether Apple took prompt remedial action and complied with all provisions of the protective order, and (d) what searches Apple had done and what Apple knew before it informed the Court and Samsung that it had no information that the [improperly redacted October 2013] document was distributed on the Internet or otherwise used; and 4. Nokias and NECs responses to Apples revelation that certain terms of their licenses with Apple were publicly filed in October 2013 and remained on the public docket for four months (including copies of such correspondence). SAMSUNGS CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 37(a)(1) Samsung hereby certifies that it has in good faith conferred with Apple in an effort to obtain the discovery described above without Court action, and that Samsung has been in continuous correspondence with Apple on this issue since the revelation of Apples October 10, 2013 public disclosure of the terms of its licenses with Nokia and NEC on February 11, 2014. Samsungs efforts to resolve this discovery dispute without court intervention are described in the Declaration of Robert J. Becher, submitted herewith.
Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK -iiiSAMSUNGS AMENDED MOTION TO COMPEL APPLE TO PROVIDE INFORMATION REGARDING ITS PUBLIC DISCLOSURES OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
DATED: March 4, 2014
Respectfully submitted, QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP By /s/ Michael T. Zeller Charles K. Verhoeven Kathleen M. Sullivan Kevin P.B. Johnson Victoria F. Maroulis William C. Price Michael T. Zeller Attorneys for SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC. and SAMSUNG TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA, LLC
Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK -ivSAMSUNGS AMENDED MOTION TO COMPEL APPLE TO PROVIDE INFORMATION REGARDING ITS PUBLIC DISCLOSURES OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
Preliminary Statement Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., and Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC (collectively, Samsung) hereby bring this motion for an order to compel Apple Inc. to provide information and transparency regarding its system for protecting confidential business information (CBI) in compliance with the protective order. particular, Samsung seeks information, including a 30(b)(6) deposition and a sworn declaration, concerning the circumstances surrounding Apples October 2013 public filing of CBI regarding certain terms of the Apple-Nokia license. Apples public filing occurred during the time when In
Apple was seeking sanctions for protective order violations against Samsung concerning this very same information, and was followed by at least two other instances the very next month where Apple again publicly filed CBIthis time belonging to its competitors, including Samsung and Google. Apples repeated disclosures of CBI warrants some investigation. Indeed, given Apples
aggressive campaign to seek sanctions against Samsung for its inadvertent disclosures, including extensive demands for discovery, Apple has no colorable basis for refusing Samsungs reasonable inquiries. The need for transparency and evenhandedness concerning Apples own inadvertent Until Apple provides this information, Samsung is unable to determine
disclosures is plain.
whether further remedial action by Samsung, including document production and potentially sanctions, is necessary. Samsungs motion for a deposition and a declaration should be granted. Factual Background Apples Public Filing of the Apple-Nokia and Apple-NEC Licenses. On February 11, 2014, Apple revealed for the first time that it had publicly filed on October 10, 2013 detailed financial terms of Apples licenses with Nokia and NEC on PACER and that this filing had remained publicly accessible for at least four months. Dkt. 2965-12. Nokias counsel was
served back in October 2013 with this public filing that contained its claimed CBI, but Nokia neither objected nor complained. Dkt. 772-774 (Nokias notices of appearance). This public
filing by Apple was made in the midst of proceedings in which Apple and Nokia were demanding sanctions (including preclusion sanctions) against Samsung for inadvertently failing to redact
Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK -1SAMSUNGS AMENDED MOTION TO COMPEL Case APPLE No. TO PROVIDE INFORMATION REGARDING ITS PUBLIC DISCLOSURES OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
references to certain terms of this same Apple-Nokia license.
And even as Apple admitted to its
public disclosure of the Apple-Nokia license terms, Apple still tried to represent to the Court that this disclosure had not been spread beyond PACER. Becher Decl., Ex. 1. In reality, however,
not only had Apples public filing been available on web sites linked to PACER, but it remained available for download on LexisNexis Courtlink until Samsung notified Apple of that fact. 2964-5, 2-3. Beginning on February 13, 2014, Samsung requested additional information regarding the details of Apples public filing of the Apple-Nokia and Apple-NEC licensing information, including the circumstances surrounding the Filing and Apples discovery that the Filing contained information Apple considers confidential, what procedures were in place to prevent the filing of confidential information at the time of the Filing, and what Apple has done to investigate whether the Filing was accessed or distributed. Dkt. 2965-16. Samsung also asked for Dkt.
information regarding when Apple notified Nokia and NEC about the Filing and how both companies have responded to Apples notice. Id. Apple responded with little information,
claiming that it had discovered its mistake in the process of reviewing Apples filings in connection with sealing issues related to third parties. Dkt. 2965-17. Apple also claimed that
counsel for Apple immediately engaged in an investigation to determine whether the document in question, or the information contained within, had become available on the Internet or otherwise used, and that, as of February 13, 2014, it had no information that the document was distributed on the Internet or otherwise used. Id. at 2. On February 14, Samsung reiterated its request for information, and asked if there was a multi-level review process, involving multiple individuals for this particular filing and, if so, the names and titles of the persons involved and what each of them did as part of the multi-level review process. Dkt. 2965-18. Samsung also informed Apple that its statement regarding public distribution of the document was inaccurate, as the document reflecting the claimed confidential terms of the Apple-Nokia license (as well as the NEC license) is readily available for download on LexisNexis CourtLink. Id. Samsung requested that Apple explain what
investigation Apple performed before it informed the Court and Samsung that it had no information the document was distributed on the Internet or otherwise used. Id.
On February 15, 2014, Apple acknowledged that, contrary to its earlier representations, the document remained publicly available on LexisNexis CourtLink and stated that it was attempting to remove it. Dkt. 2965-19. On February 18, 2014, Apple stated that LexisNexis had removed
the document from the CourtLink database, but provided none of the other requested information. Dkt. 1280-4 (Case 12-630), Ex. 1; Dkt. 2965-19. On February 19, 2014, Samsung again requested answers to the questions in its February 14 letter. 3. Id., Ex. 2. Apple did not respond. Samsung asked again on February 22. Id., Ex.
Samsung also requested to meet and confer regarding a motion to compel Apple to provide Id. Apple refused to provide the requested information and ignored Id., Ex. 4 (Apples February 23 letter declining to
the requested information.
Samsungs request for a meet and confer.
provide information because we are under no obligation to do so.) On February 24, Samsung again requested a meet and confer, this time on Tuesday, February 25. Ex. 6. Becher Dec., Ex. 5. Apple refused to meet and confer until February 26. Id.,
During the meet and confer, Apple refused to provide additional information. Id., 12. Apples Public Filing of Other CBI. Apples October 10 disclosure was not an isolated Dkt.
occurrence. 2835-8.
Apple has publicly field its competitors CBI on at least two other occasions.
In particular, Apple publicly filed Samsung and Google CBI in Case No. 12-630 on
November 5, 2013, and publicly filed Samsung, Google, Apple, Microsoft, and Novell CBI in Case No. 11-1846 on November 19, 2013. Id. One of those instances was discovered by Quinn
Emanuel, and Apple admitted to it only after being specifically questioned about the disclosure two weeks later. Id. 7-8.
Apples and Nokias Attempts to Conceal the October 10 Disclosure from the Public. Both Apple and Nokia sought to seal all references to the October 10 disclosure in an effort to hide Apples errors from the public. Dkt. 2977-3; Dkt. 1280-3 (12-630). Samsung opposed these sealing requests. Dkt. 2993-3;
On February 27, 2014, in denying all sealing motions related
to the fees and costs briefing (Dkt. 2997), the Court rejected Apples argument that the
information should be sealed because the public could locate the docket entry of the October 10 filing. Dkt. 1280-4 (12-630), Ex. 1. The Court further rejected Nokias position that all filings
related to the October 10 disclosure should be sealed indefinitely because individuals already in possession of the downloaded document would be alerted to the licensing terms in the document they legitimately downloaded from PACER or another service before February 10, 2013. 2985-3, 5; Dkt. 1315-3 (12-630), 7 (same). Dkt.
The Court found that Apples own errors should
not be hidden from public view after Apple had injected the adequacy of Samsungs own system and subsequent remedial measures into the public domain. Nokias Failure to Respond to Samsungs Request for its Communications with Apple. While meeting and conferring with Apple regarding the present motion on February 26, Apple raised the question of whether Nokia would consent to the description or production of communications between Apple and Nokia concerning Apples October 10 public filing. The
same day, Samsung immediately requested Nokias consent and production of the information. Becher Decl., Ex. 9. As of this filing, Nokia has not responded to Samsungs request.
Nokias Demand For Additional Discovery from Samsung Even After the Court Issued its January 29 Order. Despite refusing to provide information to Samsung, Nokia has continued to pursue discovery from Samsung regarding Nokias protective order allegations even after this Court resolved these issues in its January 29 Order. On February 25, Nokia filed a
motion to compel Samsung to produce information about where Nokias CBI resides, including a log prepared by Stroz Friedberg. Dkt. 2988 at 1. Rather than acknowledging the finality of
the Courts January 29 Order, Nokia claims that this Courts Order is merely a by-product of the parties efforts to discover the extent of the disclosures, and cannot substitute for the actual documents and information that show where and to whom Nokias CBI was improperly distributed, how it was distributed, and where it remains in Samsungs possession. (emphasis added). Id. at 3
Not satisfied with this Courts in camera review of Samsungs privileged
documents, findings of fact, selection of sanctions, and order of remediation, Nokia demands yet more information and documents to understand the scope of the improper disclosures. Samsung will be opposing Nokias motion to compel in due course.
Id.
Despite seeking additional discovery from Samsung, Nokia has not sought discovery from Apple, or sought sanctions, for Apples public dissemination of the same license information in October 2013. Nokia and Apples Unreasonable Delay in Complying with the Courts Unsealing Order. On February 28, Samsung informed Apple and Nokia that it intended to comply with the As a
Courts February 27 unsealing order by publicly filing the relevant documents that day.
courtesy, Samsung informed Apple and Nokia of its intentions to determine whether they had any other objections to public filing that had not been rejected by the Court. Apple stated that it had
no objections but that Samsung should wait until at least Monday to determine whether NEC had objections to public filing. Nokia likewise sought to delay. Samsung then explained that it
intended to promptly comply with the Courts order after 5 p.m. on March 1, allowing NEC and Nokia additional time to make any objections they might have. Becher Decl., Ex. 10. After
Nokia and NEC failed to respond or provide any basis for sealing that was not rejected by the Court, and did not state any intention to seek further relief, Samsung complied with the Courts sealing order on March 2. Dkts. 3000-3003; Dkt. 1363 (Case 12-630). As of the date of filing
the present amended motion, Apple and Nokia still have not complied with the Courts February 27 unsealing order, persisting in their rejected effort to hide their conduct related to the AppleNokia license from public view. Argument The Court should compel Apple to provide information regarding its system for protecting CBI in compliance with the protective order, including the circumstances surrounding Apples public filing of CBI in October 2013 (and its failure to promptly discover its mistake despite two similar mistakes in publicly filing its competitors CBI that were brought to Apples attention the very next month), Apples alleged investigation four months later, and Apples correspondence with Nokia and NEC regarding the public disclosure.
I.
INFORMATION REGARDING APPLES SYSTEM FOR PROTECTING CBI AND COMPLIANCE WITH THE PROTECTIVE ORDER IS RELEVANT. The Court previously ordered Quinn Emanuel to pay fees and costs as sanctions for
violations of the protective order based on deficiencies in Samsungs system for protecting CBI and taking prompt and adequate remedial action. Dkt. 2935. Specifically, the Courts January
29 Order found that Samsung and its outside counsel made a conscious decision to set up a system that would allow the inadvertent disclosure to occur, without required follow up and immediate corrective action. 2935 at 13, 16-17. The same questions should now be asked of
Apples system, given the recent revelation that Apple has failed to take the necessary steps to protect CBI not once, not twice, but three times in the past five monthsincluding its public filing of the very same Apple-Nokia license terms that were the subject of Apples sanctions motion against Samsung. Samsung has requested that Apple provide it with information concerning its Just
system for protecting CBI, and the circumstances surrounding the October 2013 disclosure. as the Court recognized in granting Apple discovery into the circumstances of Samsungs
inadvertent disclosures, this information is relevant to whether Apples own systems in place for protecting CBI are adequate, and whether further remedial action by Samsung, such as a request for a document production and potentially sanctions, is necessary. Additionally, the information Samsung seeks is independently relevant to determining whether the fees and costs to be awarded to Apple and Nokia in connection with the sanctions proceedings against Samsung should be reduced because a full award of fees would be unjust. Rule 37 gives the Court discretion to reduce awards where circumstances make an award of expenses unjust. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(C). Among the considerations that might warrant
the reduction of fees is that the prevailing party on the motion also acted unjustifiably. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37, Notes of Advisory Committee on Rules1970 Amendment, Subdivision (a)(4). The
information Samsung requests will shed light on whether Apple has also acted unjustifiably in disclosing its own and others CBI, such that a full fee award in connection with Apples related accusations against Samsung would be unjust and should be reduced. The Court should consider
Apples pending fee requests in light of Apples own disclosure of the very Apple-Nokia license
terms that spawned months of costly discovery and briefing for which Apple and Nokia now seek to recover their fees and costs, and in light of Apples now-discredited representations to the Court that certain terms of the Apple-Nokia license had never been publicly disclosed.1 Despite its sweeping demands for discovery regarding Samsungs inadvertent disclosures, and the relevance of the information Samsung seeks, Apple has refused to provide this information voluntarily. It should be ordered to disclose all relevant information concerning its system for
protecting CBI and complying with the protective order, including the names and titles of the persons involved in the October 2013 inadvertent disclosure and what each of them did as part of Apples multi-level review process for the particular filing at issue, and whether that system allowed competitors CBI to be distributed within Apple and/or publicly in October 2013 and thereafter. II. INFORMATION REGARDING APPLES REMEDIATION MEASURES AFTER THE NOVEMBER DISCLOSURES IS RELEVANT. Samsung also seeks information and transparency regarding whether Apple undertook an investigation of possible earlier disclosures of CBI after it had actual knowledge of its November 5 and 19, 2013 disclosures. Such an investigation might have led to a more timely discovery of
Apples October 2013 disclosure of the terms of the Apple/Nokia and Apple/NEC licenses. Whether and to what extent Apple undertook such an investigation in November 2013 is relevant to the sufficiency of Apples system for protecting CBI. Similarly, Samsung also is entitled to know whether Apples knowledge of the November 2013 disclosures caused Apple to modify its system to avoid such disclosures in the future. In
awarding sanctions, this Court determined that Quinn Emanuels response to prior disclosures of CBI were inadequate, and the same inquiry must now be made of Apple.
As Samsung explained at the February 27, 2014 hearing, it is not challenging the Courts finding that a fee award is appropriate. Rather, Samsung believes that the amount of fees and costs awarded should be reduced in light of Apples conduct.
III.
INFORMATION REGARDING APPLES FEBRUARY 2014 INVESTIGATION OF ITS OWN IMPROPER DISCLOSURE OF THE APPLE/NOKIA LICENSE TERMS TO THE PUBLIC IS RELEVANT. Apple apparently did not catch its error regarding its October 2013 public filing of the
Apple-Nokia license terms until approximately four months later, in February 2014.
It then
conducted some sort of an investigation, but is refusing to share the details and outcome of that investigation with Samsung, such as (a) whether Apple or other persons not authorized by the protective order received, disseminated or used the CBI, (b) whether Samsung was promptly informed of this and other disclosures, (c) whether Apple took prompt remedial action and complied with all provisions of the protective order, and (d) what searches Apple had done and what Apple knew before it informed the Court and Samsung that it had no information that the [improperly redacted October 2013] document was distributed on the Internet or otherwise used. Information regarding Apples investigation is relevant to many issues, including whether Apple has violated the protective order and whether Apple should be ordered to conduct further remedial efforts. and the Court. This information is also necessary to test Apples representations to Samsung Those representations should be viewed skeptically in light of Nokias
acknowledgment in its sealing declarations that the Apple-Nokia license information may already have been publicly disseminated, Dkt. 2985-3, 5, and Apples own acknowledgment that PACER download history is not readily available, Dkt. 2835-8, Ex. 7. Finally, the confidentiality of this licensing information at the time Apple and Nokia were pursing sanctions against Samsung is relevant to whether the fee award should be reduced. Apples and Nokias scorched-earth approach to Samsungs inadvertent disclosure, and the amount of the concomitant fees Apple and Nokia incurred in pursuing those efforts, must be juxtaposed against the fact that Apple had simultaneously posted (and Nokia neglected to notice) this information on the Internet for all the world to see. accordingly. The fee award should be reduced
IV.
INFORMATION REGARDING NOKIAS RESPONSE TO APPLES IMPROPER DISCLOSURE OF THE APPLE/NOKIA LICENSE TERMS TO THE PUBLIC IS RELEVANT. Nokias response to Apples October 10 disclosure is particularly relevant to the amount of
the pending award of fees and costs because it will show whether Nokia intends to pursue Apple for its disclosures. If Nokia has given no indication that it intends to do so, this suggests that
Nokia has not been seeking legitimate protection of its purported confidential information in connection with its litigation of the protective order issue against Samsung. Nokias
communications with Apple are also relevant to Apple and Nokias positions as to the confidentiality of the information involved, and the extent to which Apples filing was publicly disseminated beyond PACER, as Nokias sealing declarations indicate did, or may have, occurred. Dkt. 2985-3, 5; Dkt. 2973-2, 5 (claiming that members of the public may now be in possession of the improperly redacted Apple filing which contained the Apple/Nokia license terms). Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, Samsung requests that Apple be ordered to provide Rule 30(b)(6) deposition testimony and a sworn declaration with substantive and detailed information concerning the following subjects: 1. Apples system for protecting CBI in compliance with the protective order,
including the names and titles of the persons involved in the October 2013 inadvertent disclosure and what each of them did as part of Apples multi-level review process for the particular filing at issue, and whether that system allowed competitors CBI to be distributed within Apple and/or publicly in October 2013 and thereafter; 2. Whether Apple undertook an investigation of possible earlier disclosures of CBI
(such as the October 2013 disclosure) after it learned of its November 2013 disclosures, and whether Apples knowledge of those November 2013 disclosures caused Apple to modify its system to avoid such disclosures in the future; 3. The investigation Apple performed in February 2014, after it claims to have learned
of the October 2013 disclosure, including (a) whether Apple or other persons not authorized by the protective order received, disseminated or used the CBI, (b) whether Samsung was promptly
informed of this and other disclosures, (c) whether Apple took prompt remedial action and complied with all provisions of the protective order, and (d) what searches Apple had done and what Apple knew before it informed the Court and Samsung that it had no information that the [improperly redacted October 2013] document was distributed on the Internet or otherwise used; and 4. Nokias and NECs responses to Apples revelation that certain terms of their
licenses with Apple were publicly filed in October 2013 and remained on the public docket for four months (including copies of such correspondence).
DATED: March 4, 2014
Respectfully submitted, QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP By /s/ Michael T. Zeller Charles K. Verhoeven Kathleen M. Sullivan Kevin P.B. Johnson Victoria F. Maroulis William C. Price Michael T. Zeller Attorneys for SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC. and SAMSUNG TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA, LLC
Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK -10SAMSUNGS AMENDED MOTION TO COMPEL APPLE TO PROVIDE INFORMATION REGARDING ITS PUBLIC DISCLOSURES OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
ATTESTATION I, Victoria F. Maroulis, am the ECF User whose ID and password are being used to file this Declaration. In compliance with Civil Local Rule 5-1(i)(3), I hereby attest that Michael T.
Zeller has concurred in this filing.
Dated: March 4, 2013
By:
/s/ Victoria F. Maroulis Victoria F. Maroulis
Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK -11SAMSUNGS AMENDED MOTION TO COMPEL APPLE TO PROVIDE INFORMATION REGARDING ITS PUBLIC DISCLOSURES OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document3009-1 Filed03/05/14 Page1 of 5
1 QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP Charles K. Verhoeven (Bar No. 170151) 2 charlesverhoeven@quinnemanuel.com 50 California Street, 22nd Floor 3 San Francisco, California 94111 Telephone: (415) 875-6600 4 Facsimile: (415) 875-6700 5 Kevin P.B. Johnson (Bar No. 177129) kevinjohnson@quinnemanuel.com 6 Victoria F. Maroulis (Bar No. 202603) victoriamaroulis@quinnemanuel.com 7 555 Twin Dolphin Drive, 5th Floor Redwood Shores, California 94065-2139 8 Telephone: (650) 801-5000 Facsimile: (650) 801-5100 9 William C. Price (Bar No. 108542) 10 williamprice@quinnemanuel.com Michael T. Zeller (Bar No. 196417) 11 michaelzeller@quinnemanuel.com 865 S. Figueroa St., 10th Floor 12 Los Angeles, California 90017 Telephone: (213) 443-3000 13 Facsimile: (213) 443-3100 14 Attorneys for SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS 15 AMERICA, INC. and SAMSUNG TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA, LLC 16 17 18 19 20 APPLE INC., a California corporation, 21 22 vs. Plaintiff, CASE NO. 11-cv-01846-LHK DECLARATION OF ROBERT J. BECHER IN SUPPORT OF SAMSUNGS AMENDED MOTION TO COMPEL APPLE TO PROVIDE INFORMATION REGARDING ITS PUBLIC DISCLOSURES OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SAN JOSE DIVISION
23 SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., a Korean business entity; SAMSUNG 24 ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., a New York corporation; SAMSUNG 25 TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, 26 Defendants. 27 28
02198.51855/5781458.2
Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK DECLARATION OF ROBERT J. BECHER
1 2
I, Robert J. Becher, declare: 1. I am a Partner at Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, counsel for Samsung
3 Electronics Co., Ltd, Samsung Electronics America, Inc., and Samsung Telecommunications 4 America, LLC (collectively Samsung). I have personal knowledge of the facts set forth in this
5 declaration, except as otherwise noted, and, if called as a witness, could and would testify to those 6 facts under oath. 7 2. I submit this declaration in support of Samsungs Amended Motion to Compel
8 Apple to Provide Information regarding its Public Disclosures of Confidential Information 9 (Amended Motion). 10 3. Certain correspondence cited in Samsungs Amended Motion is attached to my
11 prior declarations filed in the 11-1846 action and/or the 12-630 action and not reattached to the 12 present declaration. See Dkt. 2964-4, Exs. 13-20 (Declaration of Robert J. Becher in Support of
13 Samsungs February 17, 2014 Letter Brief Regarding Fees and Costs); Dkt. 1280-4, Ex. 1 (Case 14 No. 12-630) (Declaration of Robert J. Becher in Support of Samsungs Opposition to Apples 15 Motion to Seal Docket Entries 1258-2 and 1258-3). 16 4. On February 18, 2014, Apple sent me a letter that did not provide sufficient detail
17 in response to my questions regarding Apples October 10 public filing of the Apple-Nokia and 18 Apple-NEC licenses. 19 Exhibit 1. 20 5. On February 19, 2014, I sent a letter to Apple explaining that it had failed to A true and correct copy of Apples February 18 letter to me is attached as
21 adequately respond to Samsungs requests for additional information regarding Apples October 22 10 public filing of the Apple-Nokia and Apple-NEC licenses. 23 February 19 letter to Apple is attached as Exhibit 2. 24 6. On February 22, 2014, I sent another letter to Apple explaining that it had failed to A true and correct copy of my
25 respond to my February 19 letter requesting additional information regarding Apples October 10 26 public filing of the Apple-Nokia and Apple-NEC licenses. I further requested to meet and confer A true and correct
27 regarding a motion to compel Apple to provide the requested information. 28 copy of my February 22 letter to Apple is attached as Exhibit 3.
02198.51855/5781458.2
-1-
7.
On February 23, 2014, Apple sent me a letter that refused to acknowledge my
2 request to meet and confer and refused to provide several categories of additional information 3 regarding Apples October 10 public filing of the Apple-Nokia and Apple-NEC licenses. 4 and correct copy of Apples February 23 letter to me is attached as Exhibit 4. 5 8. On February 24, 2014, I sent a letter to Apple again requesting a meet and confer. A true
6 A true and correct copy of my February 24 letter to Apple is attached as Exhibit 5. 7 9. On February 25, 2014, Apple sent me a letter refusing to meet and confer on A true and
8 February 25 as Samsung proposed but offering to meet and confer on February 26. 9 correct copy of Apples February 25 letter to me is attached as Exhibit 6. 10 10.
On February 25, 2014, I sent a letter to Apple explaining that Apple was
11 unreasonably delaying the meet and confer, but nevertheless requested that Apple provide the 12 requested information at the meet and confer on February 26. 13 February 25 letter to Apple is attached as Exhibit 7. 14 11. On February 25, I sent an email to Apple asking whether Samsung could share A true and correct copy of my
15 Apples February 23 letter with the ITC in connection with the 794 Investigation, and on the same 16 day, Apple refused consent. 17 is attached as Exhibit 8. 18 12. The parties held a telephonic meet and confer on February 26, which was attended I am informed that A true and correct copy of the email chain reflecting that exchange
19 by my colleagues Rachel Kassabian and Ian Shelton on behalf of Samsung.
20 Apple refused to provide the information Samsung is seeking during the call, or to commit to 21 providing it at any point in the future. I am further informed that Samsung stated that if Apple
22 refused to provide the information, Samsung would seek the assistance of the Court in obtaining 23 more formal discovery. 24 13. On February 26, I sent a letter to Nokia asking it to describe or produce all
25 communications between Apple and Nokia regarding the subject of Apples October 10 public 26 filing of the Apple-Nokia license terms. I requested that they provide the information to
27 Samsung before the February 27 hearing and be prepared to discuss those communications at the 28
02198.51855/5781458.2
-2-
1 hearing.
As of the time of filing the present declaration, I had received no response from Nokia.
2 A true and correct copy of my February 26 letter to Nokia is attached as Exhibit 9. 3 14. On February 28 and March 1, 2014, my colleague Ian Shelton engaged in email
4 correspondence with counsel for Apple and Nokia regarding the public filing of the February 17 5 fees and costs letters and related filings in compliance with the Courts February 28 unsealing 6 order, Dkt. 2997. 7 as Exhibit 10. 8 9 I declare under penalty of perjury of the laws of the United States that the foregoing is true Executed in Los Angeles, California on March 4, 2014. True and correct copies of the email chains reflecting that exchange is attached
10 and correct. 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
02198.51855/5781458.2
/s/ Robert J. Becher Robert J. Becher
-3-
1 2
!""#$"!"%&'( I, Victoria Maroulis, am the ECF User whose ID and password are being used to file this
3 !"#$%&%'()*+, , -*,#)./$(%*#",0('1,2(3($,4)#%$,56$",789:(;:<;=,-,1"&">?,%''"@','1%',Robert J. 4 Becher 1%@,#)*#6&&"A,(*,'1(@,B($(*C+, 5 6 Dated: March 4, 2014 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

02198.51855/5781458.2
By:
/s/ Victoria Maroulis Victoria Maroulis
-4-
EXHIBIT 1
Brian M. Buroker Direct: +1 202.955.8541 Fax: +1 202.530.4200 BBuroker@gibsondunn.com
February 18, 2014 HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS EYES ONLY VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL Robert Becher Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP 865 South Figueroa Street, 10th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90017 Re: Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co. et al., No. 12-cv-0630
Dear Rob: As we explained before, we were evaluating third party issues in our Daubert briefings. We were doing so in connection with the parties mutual agreement to provide the Court with consolidated, conformed copies of their Daubert briefing to aid the Courts evaluation of the motions to seal the same. Regarding your information about LexisNexis, upon receipt of your letter, we immediately contacted LexisNexis in order to determine how to have the document in question removed and begin that process. Regardless, our earlier statement remains true - LexisNexis is a subscription-based service that one must pay to access. It is not the publicly-available Internet. Moreover, when we filed our Letters with the Court last week, we were not aware of the presence of the document in question on LexisNexiss CourtLink service. Sincerely,
/s/ Brian M. Buroker
BMB/lrm
EXHIBIT 2
quinn emanuel
trial lawyers | los angeles
865 South Figueroa Street, 10th Floor, Los Angeles, California 90017-2543 | TEL (213) 443-3000 FAX (213) 443-3100
WRITER'S DIRECT DIAL NO. (213) 443-3182 WRITER'S INTERNET ADDRESS robertbecher@quinnemanuel.com
CONTAINS INFORMATION FILED UNDER SEAL BY APPLE AND DESIGNATED BY APPLE AS HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL-ATTORNEYS EYES ONLY February 19, 2014 Brian M. Buroker, Esq. Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP 1050 Connecticut Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20036-5036 Re: Brian: We write in response to your February 18, 2014 letter. You did not respond to several of the specific questions we posed in our February 14, 2014 letter. Because the answers are relevant to ongoing motions before the Court, we ask that you provide complete responses today. For your convenience, the questions from my prior letter that you did not respond to follow: Please also provide us with complete information regarding what Nokia and NEC have said in response to Apples revelation that the terms of their licenses with Apple were publicly filed in October 2013 and remained on the public docket for four months. Please also let us know if there was a multi-level review process, involving multiple individuals for this particular filing and, if so, the names and titles of the persons involved and what each of them did as part of the multi-level review process. Please explain what investigation Apple performed before it informed the Court and Samsung that it had no information the document was distributed on the Internet or otherwise used. Apple v. Samsung
quinn emanuel urquhart & sullivan, llp

NEW YORK | SAN FRANCISCO | SILICON VALLEY | CHICAGO | WASHINGTON, DC | LONDON | TOKYO | MANNHEIM | MOSCOW | HAMBURG | PARIS | MUNICH | SYDNEY | HONG KONG
We look forward to your response. Sincerely,
Robert J. Becher cc: Mark Selwyn, Esq. RJB

02198.51855/5773516.1
EXHIBIT 3
quinn emanuel
trial lawyers | los angeles
CONTAINS INFORMATION FILED UNDER SEAL BY APPLE AND DESIGNATED BY APPLE AS HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL-ATTORNEYS EYES ONLY February 22, 2014 Brian M. Buroker, Esq. Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP 1050 Connecticut Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20036-5036 Re: Brian: We wrote you on February 14, 2014 and posed very specific questions regarding Apples filing of a public document containing the terms of the Apple-Nokia and Apple-NEC license. When you failed to respond to several of our questions in your February 18, 2014 response letter, we wrote you again on February 19, 2014 and requested answers. In our letter, we pointed out that Apples responses are relevant to motions pending before the Court. You have still not responded to our questions even though one week has passed since we first asked them. Because the answers are relevant to the upcoming hearing on February 27, 2014 regarding Apples and Nokias request for attorneys fees and costs as well as pending motions to seal various pleadings discussing Apples public filing of the Apple-Nokia and Apple-NEC license terms, we require a response. Please let us know when you are available this weekend or Monday morning to meet and confer regarding a motion to compel Apple to provide the requested information. Sincerely, Apple v. Samsung
Robert J. Becher cc: Mark Selwyn, Esq.

EXHIBIT 4
Brian M. Buroker Direct: +1 202.955.8541 Fax: +1 202.530.4200 BBuroker@gibsondunn.com 03290-00026
February 23, 2014 HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS EYES ONLY VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL Robert Becher Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP 865 S. Figueroa Street Los Angeles, CA 90017 Re: Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co. et al., No. 12-cv-0630
Dear Robert: I write in response to your letters dated February 19 and 22, 2014. Your letters provide no basis for your requests, or explanation of how the additional information you seek is relevant to any issue before the Court. Nonetheless, we provide you with the following responses: 1. We confirm that Apples counsel engaged in a multi-level review process, involving multiple individuals, in connection with the Daubert filing in which the inadvertently unredacted document was filed. On October 10, 2013, Apple filed approximately 20 electronic files comprising more than 30 individual documents. The one page that was not filed in redacted form fell in the middle of a 76-page document. We decline to provide you names and titles of those involved in the multi-level review, as we are under no obligation to do so. 2. Before informing the Court and Samsung on February 11, 2014 that we had no information that the document was distributed on the Internet or otherwise used, we conducted extensive searching of the public Internet. We located no copy of the document. We have since conducted further searching of the public Internet, and still have located no copy of the document. 3. We decline to provide you with our communications with Nokia and NEC regarding the filing of the inadvertently unredacted document, as we are under no obligation to do so. We understand that Nokia and NEC will both be filing declarations on Monday supporting Apples motion to remove the improperly-redacted document from the docket.
Robert Becher February 23, 2014 Page 2
Sincerely,
EXHIBIT 5
quinn emanuel trial lawyers | los angeles

CONTAINS INFORMATION FILED UNDER SEAL BY APPLE AND DESIGNATED BY APPLE AS HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL-ATTORNEYS EYES ONLY February 24, 2014 Brian M. Buroker, Esq. Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP 1050 Connecticut Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20036-5036 Re: Apple v. Samsung
Dear Brian: I write in response to your February 23 letter. My February 22 letter unambiguously asked when you are available this weekend or Monday morning to meet and confer regarding a motion to compel Apple to provide the requested information. Your February 23 letter did not respond to or otherwise acknowledge my meet and confer request. Are you refusing to meet and confer? If not, please confirm your availability for a meet and confer call tomorrow morning. We propose 11 a.m. Sincerely,
Robert J. Becher cc: Mark Selwyn, Esq. RJB

EXHIBIT 6
Brian M. Buroker Direct: +1 202.955.8541 Fax: +1 202.530.4200 BBuroker@gibsondunn.com 03290-00026
February 25, 2014 HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS EYES ONLY VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL Robert Becher Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP 865 S. Figueroa Street Los Angeles, CA 90017 Re: Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co. et al., No. 12-cv-0630
Dear Robert: I write in response to your February 24 letter. We did not refuse to meet and confer. Our February 22 letter responded to your questions, and you have provided no specificity about what you want to meet and confer, much less the basis for whatever you seek. Nonetheless, we will be available to speak with you on Wednesday, February 26, at 11:30 am PT. Sincerely,
EXHIBIT 7

CONTAINS INFORMATION FILED UNDER SEAL BY APPLE AND DESIGNATED BY APPLE AS HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL-ATTORNEYS EYES ONLY February 25, 2014 Brian M. Buroker, Esq. Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP 1050 Connecticut Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20036-5036 Re: Brian: You have provided no basis for your refusal to meet and confer today, and we see no reason to delay discussion of these important issues. But since you have insisted on deferring this matter until tomorrow, please use the time to fully prepare for our call, so that you can provide answers to the questions we have been asking you in our correspondence since Apple first revealed this disclosure. Please use the following dial in for tomorrows 11:30 a.m. PST call: (866) 499-9580 Code 6252828 Apple v. Samsung
Sincerely,
Robert J. Becher cc: Mark Selwyn, Esq.

02198.51855/5783723.1

EXHIBIT 8
From: Robert Becher Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2014 11:38 AM To: 'Rho, Jennifer'; Ian Shelton Cc: 'Buroker, Brian M.'; 'Mark Selwyn (Mark.Selwyn@wilmerhale.com)'; 'Krevitt, Josh'; ''William F. Lee' (william.lee@wilmerhale.com) (william.lee@wilmerhale.com)' Subject: RE: Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd. et al. - Correspondence
Jennifer--The correspondence regarding this issue is equally relevant to the ITC proceeding as it is to the proceeding before Judge Grewal. We intend to also seek permission from the Court to file Gibson Dunns correspondence with Quinn Emanuel regarding the public filing of the terms of the Apple-Nokia and Apple-NEC licenses with the ITC. Please be prepared to discuss this issue during our meet and confer tomorrow. Regards, Rob
From: Rho, Jennifer [mailto:JRho@gibsondunn.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2014 9:04 AM To: Robert Becher; Ian Shelton Cc: Buroker, Brian M.; 'Mark Selwyn (Mark.Selwyn@wilmerhale.com)'; Krevitt, Josh; ''William F. Lee' (william.lee@wilmerhale.com) (william.lee@wilmerhale.com)' Subject: RE: Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd. et al. - Correspondence
Robert, We see no reason that the letter is relevant to the 794 Investigation, and therefore we do not consent. Best regards, Jennifer
Jennifer J. Rho
GIBSON DUNN
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP 333 South Grand Avenue, Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197 Tel +1 213.229.7103 Fax +1 213.229.6103 JRho@gibsondunn.com www.gibsondunn.com
From: Robert Becher [mailto:robertbecher@quinnemanuel.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2014 12:56 AM To: Rho, Jennifer; Ian Shelton Cc: Buroker, Brian M.; 'Mark Selwyn (Mark.Selwyn@wilmerhale.com)'; Krevitt, Josh; ''William F. Lee' (william.lee@wilmerhale.com) (william.lee@wilmerhale.com)' Subject: RE: Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd. et al. - Correspondence
Jennifer--May we share this with the ITC in the 794 investigation? Regards, Rob
1

From: Rho, Jennifer [mailto:JRho@gibsondunn.com] Sent: Monday, February 24, 2014 4:25 AM To: Ian Shelton; Robert Becher Cc: Buroker, Brian M.; Mark Selwyn (Mark.Selwyn@wilmerhale.com); Krevitt, Josh; 'William F. Lee' (william.lee@wilmerhale.com) (william.lee@wilmerhale.com) Subject: Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd. et al. - Correspondence
Counsel, Please see the attached correspondence from Brian Buroker. Thank you, Jennifer
Jennifer J. Rho
GIBSON DUNN
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP 333 South Grand Avenue, Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197 Tel +1 213.229.7103 Fax +1 213.229.6103 JRho@gibsondunn.com www.gibsondunn.com
This message may contain confidential and privileged information. If it has been sent to you in error, please reply to advise the sender of the error and then immediately delete this message.
EXHIBIT 9

CONTAINS INFORMATION FILED UNDER SEAL BY NOKIA VIA EMAIL February 26, 2014 Ryan W. Koppelman Randall L. Allen Alston & Bird, LLP 275 Middlefield Road, Suite 150 Menlo Park, CA 94025-4008 Ryan.Koppelman@alston.com Randall.Allen@alston.com Re: Ryan: Apple has refused to describe or provide the communications between Apple and Nokia regarding Apples October 10, 2013 public filing of the terms of the Apple-Nokia license, which remained available for download by the public while Apple and Nokia were seeking punitive sanctions against Samsung for inadvertently disseminating the same information within Samsung. Samsung contends that those communications are highly relevant to the propriety and amount of the fee award currently being considered by the Court under Rule 37, and set for hearing tomorrow. In light of Apples refusal to describe or provide those communications, Samsung requests that Nokia describe or provide those communications to Samsung immediately, and in no event later than the 3 p.m. PT hearing tomorrow. Furthermore, please be prepared to discuss the substance of those communications during the hearing. We look forward to hearing from you. Sincerely, Apple v. Samsung
Robert J. Becher RJB

EXHIBIT 10

review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by e-mail, and delete the original message.

From: Herriot, Liv [mailto:Liv.Herriot@wilmerhale.com] Sent: Friday, February 28, 2014 11:21 PM To: Ian Shelton; Samsung Damages TrialTeam; Samsung v. Apple Cc: 'AvSSDamagesTrial@mofo.com'; WH Apple Samsung NDCal Service; Silhasek, Michael; 'Apple/Samsung@gibsondunn.com'; 'ryan.koppelman@alston.com'; 'randall.allen@alston.com' Subject: RE: Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd. et al., Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK
Ian, YouareincorrectthatAppleisnotincompliancewiththeCourtsorder.NorisAppledoinganythingtocause Samsungtobeoutofcompliance. ThedeadlinetocomplywithaCourtorderregardingsealingisnotimmediate.UndertheLocalRules,thesubmitting partyhas7daystofileanunredactedversionofthedocumentafteramotiontosealisdenied.See795(f)(2).Judge GrewaldidnotindicatethattheLocalRuleswouldnotapplytohisorder.Accordingly,thedeadlineforcomplianceis Wednesday,March5. WedidnotrespondtoyouremailwithdelaytacticsandattemptstorehashwhattheCourtalreadyrejected.We wrote:Appledoesnotobjectforitself. ApplealsodidnotenteranappearanceonbehalfofNECasyousuggest.ApplefileddeclarationsforNECasacourtesy. ApplealsonotifiedNECabouttheCourtsorderbeforewereceivedyouremail. Applereiteratesthat,asamatteroffairness,NECshouldbegivenanopportunitytodeterminewhetheritwishesto objectorseekanyrelief. Thankyou, Liv
From: Ian Shelton [mailto:ianshelton@quinnemanuel.com] Sent: Friday, February 28, 2014 5:58 PM To: Herriot, Liv; Samsung Damages TrialTeam; Samsung v. Apple Cc: 'AvSSDamagesTrial@mofo.com'; WH Apple Samsung NDCal Service; Silhasek, Michael; 'Apple/Samsung@gibsondunn.com'; 'ryan.koppelman@alston.com'; 'randall.allen@alston.com' Subject: RE: Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd. et al., Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK
Counsel: Atthehearingyesterday,theCourtorallydeniedallsealingmotionsandthenorderedthatthedocumentsshallbefiled onthepublicdocket.Dkt.2997.Thedeadlineforcompliancewithacourtorderisimmediately,absentsomeother deadlinesetforthintheorder.SamsungintendstocomplyandwillnotallowApplesandNokiasdelaytocause Samsungtobeoutofcompliance.AppleandNokiaarenotincompliancewiththeCourtsorder,andSamsungreserves allrights. ApplestatesthatSamsungshouldnotcomplywiththeCourtsorderbecauseNECshouldbegivennoticeandan opportunitytoprovideanyobjections.However,Applescounselenteredanappearanceandfileddeclarationson behalfofNEC.IfNECwasnotproperlynotifiedaboutthesubstanceofthehearingortheCourtsorderyesterday,itwas ApplesfaultforfailingtoinformNEC.
2

SamsungprovidednoticeofitspublicfilingtoensurethatAppleandNokiadonothaveotherlegitimategroundsfor sealingthatwerenotrejectedbytheCourt.YetinresponsetoSamsungsnotification,neitherApplenorNokiaprovide anyotherlegitimategroundsforsealing.Samsungnotesthatitsfilingsarerelatedandnotvoluminous,andthe highlightedsealingpapersarealreadypubliclyfiled.Inanyevent,thenumberoffilingswascausedbyApplesand Nokiasvoluminoussealingrequests.AppleandNokiaarewellawareofthecontentofthosefilings.Theircontinued delayinthefaceofacourtorderistroubling. SamsungintendstocomplywiththeCourtsorderonandafter5pmPTtomorrowunlessApple,NEC,orNokiaeither providesomelegitimatebasisfornotcomplyingwiththeCourtsorderorseekotherrelief.
Ian Shelton Associate Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP 865 S. Figueroa Street, 10th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90017 213-443-3624 Direct 213-443-3000 Main Office Number 213-443-3100 Fax ianshelton@quinnemanuel.com www.quinnemanuel.com NOTICE: The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the recipient(s) named above. This message may be an attorney-client communication and/or work product and as such is privileged and confidential. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient or agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this document in error and that any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by e-mail, and delete the original message.

From: Herriot, Liv [mailto:Liv.Herriot@wilmerhale.com] Sent: Friday, February 28, 2014 4:34 PM To: Ian Shelton; Samsung Damages TrialTeam; Samsung v. Apple Cc: 'AvSSDamagesTrial@mofo.com'; WH Apple Samsung NDCal Service; Silhasek, Michael; 'Apple/Samsung@gibsondunn.com'; 'ryan.koppelman@alston.com'; 'randall.allen@alston.com' Subject: RE: Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd. et al., Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK
Ian, WhileAppledoesnotobjectforitself,webelievethatNECshouldbegivennoticeandanopportunitytoprovideany objections.Accordingly,webelieveitwouldbeappropriateforSamsungtowaituntilatleastMondaybefore proceedingtomakepublicfilings. PleaseconfirmwithApplebeforeyouproceedtofilepublicly. Thankyou, Liv

From: Ian Shelton [mailto:ianshelton@quinnemanuel.com] Sent: Friday, February 28, 2014 3:20 PM To: Ian Shelton; Herriot, Liv; Samsung Damages TrialTeam; Samsung v. Apple Cc: 'AvSSDamagesTrial@mofo.com'; WH Apple Samsung NDCal Service; Silhasek, Michael; 'Apple/Samsung@gibsondunn.com'; 'ryan.koppelman@alston.com'; 'randall.allen@alston.com' Subject: RE: Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd. et al., Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK
Counsel: PursuanttotheCourtssealingorder(Dkt.2997),allfilingsrelatedtoApplesandNokiasfeesandcostsrequestsshould immediatelybefiledpublicly.ApplesandNokiassealingpapersidentifiednogroundsforsealingotherthanthose groundsthatwerespecificallyoverruledbytheCourtattheFebruary27hearing.However,inanabundanceofcaution, SamsungisconfirmingthatAppleandNokiahavenofurtherobjectionstopublicfiling.

3

Samsungwillpubliclyfileallofitsowndocumentshighlightedbelow,includingallexhibitstoitsFebruary17letterbrief, onorafter5pmPTtodayunlessSamsunghearsparticularizedobjectionsfromAppleorNokiabeforethen. FortheremainingdocumentslistedbelowthatwerefiledbyAppleorNokia,pleaseconfirmwhenAppleandNokia intendtopubliclyfilethemincompliancewiththeCourtsOrder. Regards,
Ian Shelton Associate Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP 865 S. Figueroa Street, 10th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90017 213-443-3624 Direct 213-443-3000 Main Office Number 213-443-3100 Fax ianshelton@quinnemanuel.com www.quinnemanuel.com NOTICE: The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the recipient(s) named above. This message may be an attorney-client communication and/or work product and as such is privileged and confidential. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient or agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this document in error and that any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by e-mail, and delete the original message.
Date FiledBy: CaseNo.111846Docket 02/17/2014 Apple 2958AdministrativeMotiontoFileUnderSealApple'sLetterBriefinResponsetotheCourts February6,2014Order(DocketNo.2941)filedbyAppleInc..(Attachments:#1Declarationof PeterJ.KolovosinSupportofApple'sAdministrativeMotiontoSeal,#2ProposedOrder GrantingApple'sAdministrativeMotiontoFileDocumentsUnderSeal,#3LetterBriefin ResponsetoCourt'sFebruary6,2014Order)(Selwyn,Mark)(Filedon2/17/2014)(Entered: 02/17/2014) 02/17/2014 Samsung 2964AdministrativeMotiontoFileUnderSealSamsung'sLetterBriefreFeesandCostsfiled bySamsungElectronicsAmerica,Inc.,SamsungElectronicsCo.Ltd.,Samsung TelecommunicationsAmerica,LLC.(Attachments:#1BecherDeclarationreMotiontoSeal,# 2ProposedOrder,#3Samsung'sLetterBrief,#4BecherDeclaration,#5Trac Declaration)(Maroulis,Victoria)(Filedon2/17/2014)(Entered:02/17/2014) 02/17/2014 Samsung 2965EXHIBITSre2964AdministrativeMotiontoFileUnderSealSamsung'sLetterBriefre FeesandCostsBecherDeclarationExhibit1[2/6/14LetterfromBechertoAppleandNokia requestingexpensesdocumentation]tofiledbySamsungElectronicsAmerica,Inc.,Samsung ElectronicsCo.Ltd.,SamsungTelecommunicationsAmerica,LLC.(Attachments:#1Exhibit2 [2/11/14LetterfromBecherfollowingupandrequestingexpensesdocumentation],#2 Exhibit3[2/11/14ExpensesLetterfromApple],#3Exhibit4[2/12/14SamsungtoApple Letterrequestingmoredetail],#4Exhibit5[2/13/14AppleExpensesLetter],#5Exhibit6 [AppleInvoices],#6Exhibit7[2/13/14SamsungtoAppleExpensesLetter],#7Exhibit8 [2/14/14AppleLetterattachingbillingchart],#8Exhibit9[2/16/14AppleLettercontaining individualbillingrates],#9Exhibit10[2/16/14AppleExpensesChart],#10Exhibit11 [2/11/14NokiaExpensesLetter],#11Exhibit12[2/12/14NokiaRevisedExpensesLetter],# 12Exhibit13[2/11/14Appletwodisclosureletters],#13Exhibit14[2/12/14Samsungto AppleLetterrequestingredactedcopiesofApplestwodisclosureletters],#14Exhibit15 [2/12/14AppleLetterattachingproposedredactionsoftwodisclosureletters],#15Exhibit16 [2/12/14SamsungtoAppleletterrequestingpublicfilingofdisclosureletters],#16Exhibit17 [2/13/14SamsungtoAppleLetterrequestingadditionalinfo],#17Exhibit18[2/13/14Apple toSamsungLetterprovidinglimitedinfo],#18Exhibit19[2/14/14SamsungtoAppleLetter demandingmoreinfo],#19Exhibit20[2/15/14AppletoSamsungLetterredisclosures],#20
4

Exhibit21[Appleblockbillingspreadsheet],#21Exhibit22[Nokiablockbillingspreadsheet], #22Exhibit23[ApplepostOct.10feesspreadsheet],#23Exhibit24[NokiapostOct.10fees spreadsheet],#24Exhibit25[Appletotalfeesspreadsheet],#25Exhibit26[Nokiatotalfees spreadsheet],#26Exhibit27[Applecostsspreadsheet],#27Exhibit28[Nokiacosts spreadsheet])(Relateddocument(s)2964)(Maroulis,Victoria)(Filedon2/17/2014)(Entered: 02/17/2014) 2973AdministrativeMotiontoFileUnderSealfiledbyNokiaCorporation.(Attachments:#1 DeclarationREDACTEDVERSIONOFDeclarationofRyanW.KoppelmanInSupportofApple's andSamsung'sAdministrativeMotionstoSeal[Dkt.Nos.2958,2964],#2Declaration UNREDACTEDVERSIONOFDeclarationofRyanW.KoppelmanInSupportofApple'sand Samsung'sAdministrativeMotionstoSeal[Dkt.Nos.2958,2964],#3ProposedOrder,#4 Certificate/ProofofService)(Koppelman,Ryan)(Filedon2/21/2014)(Entered:02/21/2014) 2974AdministrativeMotiontoFileUnderSealNoticeofApple'sFilingofRevisedHighlighted VersionandofPublicRedactedVersionofApplesFebruary17,2014LetterBriefinResponseto theCourtsFebruary6,2014Order(seeDkt.2958)filedbyAppleInc..(Attachments:#1 ConformedHighlightedVersionofApplesFebruary17,2014LetterBriefinResponsetothe CourtsFebruary6,2014Order,#2RedactedVersionofApplesFebruary17,2014LetterBrief inResponsetotheCourtsFebruary6,2014Order)(Selwyn,Mark)(Filedon2/21/2014) (Entered:02/21/2014) 2975AdministrativeMotiontoFileUnderSealDeclarationofNonPartyfiledbyAppleInc.. (Attachments:#1Declaration[Nishino(NEC)DecreApplesAdminMtntoFileDocsUnder Seal],#2Declaration[Nishino(NEC)DecreSamsungsAdminMtntoFileDocsUnderSeal],# 3ProposedOrder)(Selwyn,Mark)(Filedon2/21/2014)(Entered:02/21/2014) 2976AdministrativeMotiontoFileUnderSealfiledbyAppleInc..(Attachments:#1 UnredactedVersionofDeclarationofPeterJ.KolovosInSupportofSamsung'sAdministrative MotiontoFileDocumentsUnderSeal(Dkt.2964),#2ProposedOrder)(Selwyn,Mark)(Filed on2/21/2014)(Entered:02/21/2014) 2977AdministrativeMotiontoFileUnderSealfiledbySamsungElectronicsAmerica,Inc., SamsungElectronicsCo.Ltd.,SamsungTelecommunicationsAmerica,LLC.(Attachments:#1 DeclarationofRobertJ.Becher,#2ProposedOrder,#3Samsung'sOppositionto AdministrativeMotiontoSeal(Dkt.2958)theKolovosDeclaration(Dkt.29581)andApple's February17,2014LetterBrief(Dkt.29583)andOppositiontoAdministrativeMotiontoSeal (Dkt.2964)Samsung'sFebruary17,2014LetterBrief(Dkt.29643),theBecherDeclaration (Dkt.29644),andtheTracDeclaration(Dkt.29645))(Maroulis,Victoria)(Filedon2/21/2014) Modifiedtexton2/24/2014(dhmS,COURTSTAFF).(Entered:02/21/2014) 2985AdministrativeMotiontoFileUnderSealfiledbyNokiaCorporation.(Attachments:#1 ProposedOrder,#2RedactedVersionoftheDeclarationofRyanKoppelmaninSupportof SamsungsAdministrativeMotiontoFileDocumentUnderSeal[Dkt.No.2977],#3Unredacted VersionoftheDeclarationofRyanKoppelmaninSupportofSamsungsAdministrativeMotion toFileDocumentUnderSeal[Dkt.No.2977])(Koppelman,Ryan)(Filedon2/25/2014) (Entered:02/25/2014) 2991AdministrativeMotiontoFileUnderSealDeclarationofPeterJ.KolovosinSupportof Samsung'sandApple'sAdministrativeMotionstoFileDocumentsUnderSeal2977filedby AppleInc..(Attachments:#1UnredactedVersionofDeclarationofPeterJ.KolovosinSupport ofApple'sandSamsung'sAdministrativeMotionstoFileDocumentUnderSeal,#2Proposed Order)(Selwyn,Mark)(Filedon2/25/2014)(Entered:02/25/2014) 2993AdministrativeMotiontoFileUnderSealfiledbySamsungElectronicsAmerica,Inc., SamsungElectronicsCo.Ltd.,SamsungTelecommunicationsAmerica,LLC.(Attachments:#1 DeclarationofRobertJ.BecherinSupportofMotiontoSeal,#2ProposedOrderDenying AdministrativeMotiontoFileunderSeal,#3UnredactedVersionofSamsung'sOppositionto AdministrativeMotiontoSealDkt.29773)(Fazio,Michael)(Filedon2/25/2014)(Entered: 02/25/2014)
5
02/21/2014 Nokia
02/21/2014 Apple
02/21/2014 Apple
02/21/2014 Apple
02/21/2014 Samsung
02/25/2014 Nokia
02/25/2014 Apple
02/25/2014 Samsung

02/27/2014 Samsung 2996AdministrativeMotiontoFileUnderSealSamsung'sMotiontoCompelAppletoProvide InformationRegardingitsPublicDisclosuresofConfidentialInformationfiledbySamsung ElectronicsAmerica,Inc.,SamsungElectronicsCo.Ltd.,SamsungTelecommunications America,LLC.(Attachments:#1BecherDeclarationreSealing,#2ProposedOrderDENYING MotiontoSeal,#3Samsung'sMotiontoCompel,#4BecherDeclarationreMotionto Compel,#5Exhibit1[2/18/14AppletoSamsungLetterredisclosures],#6Exhibit2[2/19/14 SamsungtoAppleLetterredisclosures],#7Exhibit3[2/22/14SamsungtoAppleLetter demandingmeetandconfer],#8Exhibit4[2/23/14AppletoSamsungLetterrefusalto provideinforedisclosures],#9Exhibit5[2/24/14SamsungtoAppleagaindemandingmeet andconfer],#10Exhibit6[2/25/14AppletoSamsungLetterdelayingmeetandconfer], #11Exhibit7[2/25/14SamsungtoAppleLetterrequestinginforedisclosures],#12Exhibit8 [2/25/14SamsungtoApplerepermissiontoshareApples2/23letterwithITC],#13Exhibit9 [2/26/14SamsungtoNokiaLetterreApplesdisclosures],#14ProposedOrderGranting MotiontoCompel)(Maroulis,Victoria)(Filedon2/27/2014)(Entered:02/27/2014)
Date FiledBy: 02/11/2014 Apple
02/18/2014 Nokia
02/18/2014 Apple
02/18/2014 Samsung
02/18/2014 Apple
02/19/2014 Apple
CaseNo.12630Docket 1258AdministrativeMotiontoFileUnderSealLetterstotheCourtfiledbyAppleInc.(a Californiacorporation).(Attachments:#1Declaration[UnredactedVersionofDocument SoughttobeSealed]DeclarationofPeterJ.KolovosinSupportofApple'sAdministrative MotiontoFileDocumentsUnderSeal,#2[UnredactedVersionofDocumentSoughttoBe Sealed]LetterfromJoshKrevitttoJudgeGrewal,#3[UnredactedVersionofDocumentSought toBeSealed]LetterfromWilliamF.LeetoJudgeGrewal,#4ProposedOrder)(Selwyn,Mark) (Filedon2/11/2014)(Entered:02/11/2014) 1276AdministrativeMotiontoFileUnderSealfiledbyNokiaCorporation.(Attachments:#1 DeclarationREDACTEDVERSIONOFDECLARATIONOFRYANW.KOPPELMANINSUPPORTOF APPLESADMINISTRATIVEMOTIONTOSEAL,#2DeclarationUNDERSEALVERSIONOF DECLARATIONOFRYANW.KOPPELMANINSUPPORTOFAPPLESADMINISTRATIVEMOTIONTO SEAL,#3ProposedOrder,#4Certificate/ProofofService)(Koppelman,Ryan)(Filedon 2/18/2014)(Entered:02/18/2014) 1278AdministrativeMotiontoFileUnderSealMotiontoRemoveIncorrectlyFiledDocument filedbyAppleInc.(aCaliforniacorporation).(Attachments:#1ProposedOrderGranting MotiontoSeal,#2DeclarationofJenniferRhoinsupportofMotiontoSeal,#3Motionto Remove,#4DeclarationofJenniferRhoinsupportofMotiontoRemove,#5ProposedOrder GrantingMotiontoRemove)(Lyon,Hervey)(Filedon2/18/2014)(Entered:02/18/2014) 1280AdministrativeMotiontoFileUnderSealfiledbySamsungElectronicsAmerica,Inc.(a NewYorkcorporation),SamsungElectronicsCo.,Ltd.(aKoreancorporation),Samsung TelecommunicationsAmerica,LLC(aDelawarelimitedliabilitycompany).(Attachments:#1 DeclarationofRobertBecherinSupportofMotiontoSeal,#2ProposedOrderGranting AdministrativeMotiontoFileUnderSeal,#3UnredactedVersionofSamsung'sOppositionto Apple'sMotiontoSeal[DocketEntries12582and12583],#4DeclarationUnredacted VersionofBecherDecl.InSupportOfSamsung'sOppositiontoApple'sMotiontoSeal[Docket Entries12582and12583],#5ExhibitUnredactedVersionofExhibit1toBecher Decl.)(Maroulis,Victoria)(Filedon2/18/2014)(Entered:02/18/2014) 1282AdministrativeMotiontoFileUnderSealDeclarationofNonPartyfiledbyAppleInc.(a Californiacorporation).(Attachments:#1ProposedOrder,#2DeclarationofNonParty [AyumiNishinoRegardingApplesMotiontoSealDkts.1258and1278])(Lyon,Hervey)(Filed on2/18/2014)(Entered:02/18/2014) 1289AdministrativeMotiontoFileUnderSealLetterfromJoshKrevitttotheCourtfiledby AppleInc.(aCaliforniacorporation).(Attachments:#1ProposedOrder,#2Declarationof JenniferRho[ISOApplesmotiontosealDocket1289],#3LetterfromJoshKrevitt)(Lyon, Hervey)(Filedon2/19/2014)(Entered:02/19/2014)
6

02/24/2014 Nokia 1315AdministrativeMotiontoFileUnderSealfiledbyNokiaCorporation.(Attachments:#1 ProposedOrder,#2DeclarationRedactedVersionofDeclarationofRyanKoppelman,#3 DeclarationUnredactedVersionofDeclarationofRyanKoppelman)(Koppelman,Ryan)(Filed on2/24/2014)(Entered:02/24/2014) 1320AdministrativeMotiontoFileUnderSealAmendedDeclarationofNonPartyMs.Ayumi Nishino(D.I.1282)filedbyAppleInc.(aCaliforniacorporation).(Attachments:#1Proposed Order,#2AmendedDeclarationofNonParty)(Lyon,Hervey)(Filedon2/24/2014)Modified texton2/25/2014(dhmS,COURTSTAFF).(Entered:02/24/2014) 1322AdministrativeMotiontoFileUnderSealDeclarationofNonPartyfiledbyAppleInc.(a Californiacorporation).(Attachments:#1ProposedOrder,#2DeclarationofNonParty [AmendedDeclarationofAyumiNishinoRegardingApplesMotiontoSealDockets1258and 1278])(Lyon,Hervey)(Filedon2/24/2014)(Entered:02/24/2014) 1323AdministrativeMotiontoFileUnderSealDeclarationofPeterJ.KolovosinSupportof Samsung'sandApple'sAdministrativeMotionstoFileDocumentsUnderSeal1280filedby AppleInc.(aCaliforniacorporation).(Attachments:#1DeclarationofPeterJ.Kolovosin SupportofSamsung'sandApple'sAdministrativeMotionstoFileDocumentsUnderSeal,#2 ProposedOrderGrantingApple'sAdministrativeMotiontoFileDocumentsUnder Seal)(Selwyn,Mark)(Filedon2/24/2014)(Entered:02/24/2014)
02/24/2014 Apple
02/24/2014 Apple
02/24/2014 Apple

Received:Friday,28Feb2014,5:58PM To:Herriot,Liv[Liv.Herriot@wilmerhale.com];SamsungDamagesTrialTeam [SamsungDamagesTrialTeam@quinnemanuel.com];Samsungv.Apple [Samsungv.Apple@quinnemanuel.com] CC:'AvSSDamagesTrial@mofo.com'[AvSSDamagesTrial@mofo.com];WHAppleSamsungNDCalService [WHAppleSamsungNDCalService@wilmerhale.com];Silhasek,Michael [Michael.Silhasek@wilmerhale.com];'Apple/Samsung@gibsondunn.com' [Apple/Samsung@gibsondunn.com];Koppelman,Ryan[Ryan.Koppelman@alston.com];Allen,Randall [Randall.Allen@alston.com] Subject:RE:AppleInc.v.SamsungElecs.Co.,Ltd.etal.,CaseNo.11cv01846LHK Counsel: Atthehearingyesterday,theCourtorallydeniedallsealingmotionsandthenorderedthat thedocumentsshallbefiledonthepublicdocket.Dkt.2997.Thedeadlineforcompliance withacourtorderisimmediately,absentsomeotherdeadlinesetforthintheorder. SamsungintendstocomplyandwillnotallowApplesandNokiasdelaytocauseSamsungtobe outofcompliance.AppleandNokiaarenotincompliancewiththeCourtsorder,andSamsung reservesallrights. ApplestatesthatSamsungshouldnotcomplywiththeCourtsorderbecauseNECshouldbe givennoticeandanopportunitytoprovideanyobjections.However,Applescounselentered anappearanceandfileddeclarationsonbehalfofNEC.IfNECwasnotproperlynotified aboutthesubstanceofthehearingortheCourtsorderyesterday,itwasApplesfaultfor failingtoinformNEC. SamsungprovidednoticeofitspublicfilingtoensurethatAppleandNokiadonothaveother legitimategroundsforsealingthatwerenotrejectedbytheCourt.Yetinresponseto Samsungsnotification,neitherApplenorNokiaprovideanyotherlegitimategroundsfor sealing.Samsungnotesthatitsfilingsarerelatedandnotvoluminous,andthehighlighted sealingpapersarealreadypubliclyfiled.Inanyevent,thenumberoffilingswascausedby ApplesandNokiasvoluminoussealingrequests.AppleandNokiaarewellawareofthe contentofthosefilings.Theircontinueddelayinthefaceofacourtorderistroubling. SamsungintendstocomplywiththeCourtsorderonandafter5pmPTtomorrowunlessApple, NEC,orNokiaeitherprovidesomelegitimatebasisfornotcomplyingwiththeCourtsorder orseekotherrelief. IanShelton Associate QuinnEmanuelUrquhart&Sullivan,LLP 865S.FigueroaStreet,10thFloor LosAngeles,CA90017 2134433624Direct 2134433000MainOfficeNumber 2134433100Fax ianshelton@quinnemanuel.com<mailto:ianshelton@quinnemanuel.com> www.quinnemanuel.com<http://www.quinnemanuel.com> NOTICE:Theinformationcontainedinthisemailmessageisintendedonlyforthepersonal andconfidentialuseoftherecipient(s)namedabove.Thismessagemaybeanattorneyclient communicationand/orworkproductandassuchisprivilegedandconfidential.Ifthereader ofthismessageisnottheintendedrecipientoragentresponsiblefordeliveringittothe intendedrecipient,youareherebynotifiedthatyouhavereceivedthisdocumentinerrorand thatanyreview,dissemination,distribution,orcopyingofthismessageisstrictly prohibited.Ifyouhavereceivedthiscommunicationinerror,pleasenotifyusimmediatelyby email,anddeletetheoriginalmessage.
2

From:Herriot,Liv[mailto:Liv.Herriot@wilmerhale.com] Sent:Friday,February28,20144:34PM To:IanShelton;SamsungDamagesTrialTeam;Samsungv.Apple Cc:'AvSSDamagesTrial@mofo.com';WHAppleSamsungNDCalService;Silhasek,Michael; 'Apple/Samsung@gibsondunn.com';'ryan.koppelman@alston.com';'randall.allen@alston.com' Subject:RE:AppleInc.v.SamsungElecs.Co.,Ltd.etal.,CaseNo.11cv01846LHK Ian, WhileAppledoesnotobjectforitself,webelievethatNECshouldbegivennoticeandan opportunitytoprovideanyobjections.Accordingly,webelieveitwouldbeappropriatefor SamsungtowaituntilatleastMondaybeforeproceedingtomakepublicfilings. PleaseconfirmwithApplebeforeyouproceedtofilepublicly. Thankyou, Liv From:IanShelton[mailto:ianshelton@quinnemanuel.com] Sent:Friday,February28,20143:20PM To:IanShelton;Herriot,Liv;SamsungDamagesTrialTeam;Samsungv.Apple Cc:'AvSSDamagesTrial@mofo.com';WHAppleSamsungNDCalService;Silhasek,Michael; 'Apple/Samsung@gibsondunn.com';'ryan.koppelman@alston.com';'randall.allen@alston.com' Subject:RE:AppleInc.v.SamsungElecs.Co.,Ltd.etal.,CaseNo.11cv01846LHK Counsel: PursuanttotheCourtssealingorder(Dkt.2997),allfilingsrelatedtoApplesandNokias feesandcostsrequestsshouldimmediatelybefiledpublicly.ApplesandNokiassealing papersidentifiednogroundsforsealingotherthanthosegroundsthatwerespecifically overruledbytheCourtattheFebruary27hearing.However,inanabundanceofcaution, SamsungisconfirmingthatAppleandNokiahavenofurtherobjectionstopublicfiling. Samsungwillpubliclyfileallofitsowndocumentshighlightedbelow,includingallexhibits toitsFebruary17letterbrief,onorafter5pmPTtodayunlessSamsunghears particularizedobjectionsfromAppleorNokiabeforethen. FortheremainingdocumentslistedbelowthatwerefiledbyAppleorNokia,pleaseconfirm whenAppleandNokiaintendtopubliclyfilethemincompliancewiththeCourtsOrder. Regards, IanShelton Associate QuinnEmanuelUrquhart&Sullivan,LLP 865S.FigueroaStreet,10thFloor LosAngeles,CA90017 2134433624Direct 2134433000MainOfficeNumber 2134433100Fax ianshelton@quinnemanuel.com<mailto:ianshelton@quinnemanuel.com> www.quinnemanuel.com<http://www.quinnemanuel.com> NOTICE:Theinformationcontainedinthisemailmessageisintendedonlyforthepersonal andconfidentialuseoftherecipient(s)namedabove.Thismessagemaybeanattorneyclient communicationand/orworkproductandassuchisprivilegedandconfidential.Ifthereader ofthismessageisnottheintendedrecipientoragentresponsiblefordeliveringittothe intendedrecipient,youareherebynotifiedthatyouhavereceivedthisdocumentinerrorand
3

thatanyreview,dissemination,distribution,orcopyingofthismessageisstrictly prohibited.Ifyouhavereceivedthiscommunicationinerror,pleasenotifyusimmediatelyby email,anddeletetheoriginalmessage. Date FiledBy: CaseNo.111846Docket 02/17/2014 Apple 2958AdministrativeMotiontoFileUnderSealApple'sLetterBriefinResponsetothe CourtsFebruary6,2014Order(DocketNo. 2941<https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/doc1/035111436681>)filedbyAppleInc..(Attachments:# 1<https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/doc1/035111469098>DeclarationofPeterJ.KolovosinSupport ofApple'sAdministrativeMotiontoSeal,# 2<https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/doc1/035111469099>ProposedOrderGrantingApple's AdministrativeMotiontoFileDocumentsUnderSeal,# 3<https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/doc1/035111469100>LetterBriefinResponsetoCourt's February6,2014Order)(Selwyn,Mark)(Filedon2/17/2014)(Entered:02/17/2014) 02/17/2014 Samsung 2964AdministrativeMotiontoFileUnderSealSamsung'sLetterBriefreFeesandCosts filedbySamsungElectronicsAmerica,Inc.,SamsungElectronicsCo.Ltd.,Samsung TelecommunicationsAmerica,LLC.(Attachments:# 1<https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/doc1/035111469123>BecherDeclarationreMotiontoSeal,# 2<https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/doc1/035111469124>ProposedOrder,# 3<https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/doc1/035111469125>Samsung'sLetterBrief,# 4<https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/doc1/035111469126>BecherDeclaration,# 5<https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/doc1/035111469127>TracDeclaration)(Maroulis,Victoria) (Filedon2/17/2014)(Entered:02/17/2014) 02/17/2014 Samsung 2965EXHIBITSre2964<https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/doc1/035011469122>Administrative MotiontoFileUnderSealSamsung'sLetterBriefreFeesandCostsBecherDeclarationExhibit 1[2/6/14LetterfromBechertoAppleandNokiarequestingexpensesdocumentation]tofiled bySamsungElectronicsAmerica,Inc.,SamsungElectronicsCo.Ltd.,Samsung TelecommunicationsAmerica,LLC.(Attachments:# 1<https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/doc1/035111469134>Exhibit2[2/11/14LetterfromBecher followingupandrequestingexpensesdocumentation],# 2<https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/doc1/035111469135>Exhibit3[2/11/14ExpensesLetterfrom Apple],#3<https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/doc1/035111469136>Exhibit4[2/12/14Samsungto AppleLetterrequestingmoredetail],#4<https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/doc1/035111469137> Exhibit5[2/13/14AppleExpensesLetter],# 5<https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/doc1/035111469138>Exhibit6[AppleInvoices],# 6<https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/doc1/035111469139>Exhibit7[2/13/14SamsungtoApple ExpensesLetter],#7<https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/doc1/035111469140>Exhibit8[2/14/14
4

AppleLetterattachingbillingchart],#8<https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/doc1/035111469141> Exhibit9[2/16/14AppleLettercontainingindividualbillingrates],# 9<https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/doc1/035111469142>Exhibit10[2/16/14AppleExpensesChart], #10<https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/doc1/035111469143>Exhibit11[2/11/14NokiaExpenses Letter],#11<https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/doc1/035111469144>Exhibit12[2/12/14Nokia RevisedExpensesLetter],#12<https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/doc1/035111469145>Exhibit13 [2/11/14Appletwodisclosureletters],#13<https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/doc1/035111469146> Exhibit14[2/12/14SamsungtoAppleLetterrequestingredactedcopiesofApplestwo disclosureletters],#14<https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/doc1/035111469147>Exhibit15 [2/12/14AppleLetterattachingproposedredactionsoftwodisclosureletters],# 15<https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/doc1/035111469148>Exhibit16[2/12/14SamsungtoApple letterrequestingpublicfilingofdisclosureletters],# 16<https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/doc1/035111469149>Exhibit17[2/13/14SamsungtoApple Letterrequestingadditionalinfo],#17<https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/doc1/035111469150> Exhibit18[2/13/14AppletoSamsungLetterprovidinglimitedinfo],# 18<https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/doc1/035111469151>Exhibit19[2/14/14SamsungtoApple Letterdemandingmoreinfo],#19<https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/doc1/035111469152>Exhibit20 [2/15/14AppletoSamsungLetterredisclosures],# 20<https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/doc1/035111469153>Exhibit21[Appleblockbilling spreadsheet],#21<https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/doc1/035111469154>Exhibit22[Nokiablock billingspreadsheet],#22<https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/doc1/035111469155>Exhibit23[Apple postOct.10feesspreadsheet],#23<https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/doc1/035111469156>Exhibit 24[NokiapostOct.10feesspreadsheet],# 24<https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/doc1/035111469157>Exhibit25[Appletotalfees spreadsheet],#25<https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/doc1/035111469158>Exhibit26[Nokiatotal feesspreadsheet],#26<https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/doc1/035111469159>Exhibit27[Apple costsspreadsheet],#27<https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/doc1/035111469160>Exhibit28[Nokia costsspreadsheet])(Relateddocument(s)2964<https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/doc1/035011469122> )(Maroulis,Victoria)(Filedon2/17/2014)(Entered:02/17/2014) 02/21/2014 Nokia 2973AdministrativeMotiontoFileUnderSealfiledbyNokiaCorporation.(Attachments:# 1<https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/doc1/035111487254>DeclarationREDACTEDVERSIONOF DeclarationofRyanW.KoppelmanInSupportofApple'sandSamsung'sAdministrativeMotions toSeal[Dkt.Nos.2958,2964],#2<https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/doc1/035111487255> DeclarationUNREDACTEDVERSIONOFDeclarationofRyanW.KoppelmanInSupportofApple'sand Samsung'sAdministrativeMotionstoSeal[Dkt.Nos.2958,2964],# 3<https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/doc1/035111487256>ProposedOrder,# 4<https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/doc1/035111487257>Certificate/ProofofService)(Koppelman, Ryan)(Filedon2/21/2014)(Entered:02/21/2014) 02/21/2014 Apple 2974AdministrativeMotiontoFileUnderSealNoticeofApple'sFilingofRevised HighlightedVersionandofPublicRedactedVersionofApplesFebruary17,2014LetterBrief inResponsetotheCourtsFebruary6,2014Order(seeDkt. 2958<https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/doc1/035011469097>)filedbyAppleInc..(Attachments:# 1<https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/doc1/035111489738>ConformedHighlightedVersionofApples February17,2014LetterBriefinResponsetotheCourtsFebruary6,2014Order,# 2<https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/doc1/035111489739>RedactedVersionofApplesFebruary17, 2014LetterBriefinResponsetotheCourtsFebruary6,2014Order)(Selwyn,Mark)(Filedon 2/21/2014)(Entered:02/21/2014)
5

02/21/2014 Apple 2975AdministrativeMotiontoFileUnderSealDeclarationofNonPartyfiledbyAppleInc.. (Attachments:#1<https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/doc1/035111490020>Declaration[Nishino(NEC) DecreApplesAdminMtntoFileDocsUnderSeal],# 2<https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/doc1/035111490021>Declaration[Nishino(NEC)Decre SamsungsAdminMtntoFileDocsUnderSeal],# 3<https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/doc1/035111490022>ProposedOrder)(Selwyn,Mark)(Filedon 2/21/2014)(Entered:02/21/2014) 02/21/2014 Apple 2976AdministrativeMotiontoFileUnderSealfiledbyAppleInc..(Attachments:# 1<https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/doc1/035111490083>UnredactedVersionofDeclarationofPeter J.KolovosInSupportofSamsung'sAdministrativeMotiontoFileDocumentsUnderSeal(Dkt. 2964<https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/doc1/035011469122>),# 2<https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/doc1/035111490084>ProposedOrder)(Selwyn,Mark)(Filedon 2/21/2014)(Entered:02/21/2014) 02/21/2014 Samsung 2977AdministrativeMotiontoFileUnderSealfiledbySamsungElectronicsAmerica,Inc., SamsungElectronicsCo.Ltd.,SamsungTelecommunicationsAmerica,LLC.(Attachments:# 1<https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/doc1/035111490104>DeclarationofRobertJ.Becher,# 2<https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/doc1/035111490105>ProposedOrder,# 3<https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/doc1/035111490106>Samsung'sOppositiontoAdministrative MotiontoSeal(Dkt.2958<https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/doc1/035011469097>)theKolovos Declaration(Dkt.29581)andApple'sFebruary17,2014LetterBrief(Dkt.29583)and OppositiontoAdministrativeMotiontoSeal(Dkt. 2964<https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/doc1/035011469122>)Samsung'sFebruary17,2014Letter Brief(Dkt.29643),theBecherDeclaration(Dkt.29644),andtheTracDeclaration(Dkt. 29645))(Maroulis,Victoria)(Filedon2/21/2014)Modifiedtexton2/24/2014(dhmS,COURT STAFF).(Entered:02/21/2014) 02/25/2014 Nokia 2985AdministrativeMotiontoFileUnderSealfiledbyNokiaCorporation.(Attachments:# 1<https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/doc1/035111498530>ProposedOrder,# 2<https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/doc1/035111498531>RedactedVersionoftheDeclarationof RyanKoppelmaninSupportofSamsungsAdministrativeMotiontoFileDocumentUnderSeal[Dkt. No.2977],#3<https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/doc1/035111498532>UnredactedVersionofthe DeclarationofRyanKoppelmaninSupportofSamsungsAdministrativeMotiontoFileDocument UnderSeal[Dkt.No.2977])(Koppelman,Ryan)(Filedon2/25/2014)(Entered:02/25/2014) 02/25/2014 Apple
6

2991AdministrativeMotiontoFileUnderSealDeclarationofPeterJ.KolovosinSupportof Samsung'sandApple'sAdministrativeMotionstoFileDocumentsUnderSeal 2977<https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/doc1/035011490103>filedbyAppleInc..(Attachments:# 1<https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/doc1/035111499740>UnredactedVersionofDeclarationofPeter J.KolovosinSupportofApple'sandSamsung'sAdministrativeMotionstoFileDocumentUnder Seal,#2<https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/doc1/035111499741>ProposedOrder)(Selwyn,Mark) (Filedon2/25/2014)(Entered:02/25/2014) 02/25/2014 Samsung 2993AdministrativeMotiontoFileUnderSealfiledbySamsungElectronicsAmerica,Inc., SamsungElectronicsCo.Ltd.,SamsungTelecommunicationsAmerica,LLC.(Attachments:# 1<https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/doc1/035111499953>DeclarationofRobertJ.BecherinSupport ofMotiontoSeal,#2<https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/doc1/035111499954>ProposedOrder DenyingAdministrativeMotiontoFileunderSeal,# 3<https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/doc1/035111499955>UnredactedVersionofSamsung'sOpposition toAdministrativeMotiontoSealDkt.29773)(Fazio,Michael)(Filedon2/25/2014)(Entered: 02/25/2014) 02/27/2014 Samsung 2996AdministrativeMotiontoFileUnderSealSamsung'sMotiontoCompelAppletoProvide InformationRegardingitsPublicDisclosuresofConfidentialInformationfiledbySamsung ElectronicsAmerica,Inc.,SamsungElectronicsCo.Ltd.,SamsungTelecommunicationsAmerica, LLC.(Attachments:#1<https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/doc1/035111506706>BecherDeclarationre Sealing,#2<https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/doc1/035111506707>ProposedOrderDENYINGMotion toSeal,#3<https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/doc1/035111506708>Samsung'sMotiontoCompel,# 4<https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/doc1/035111506709>BecherDeclarationreMotiontoCompel,# 5<https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/doc1/035111506710>Exhibit1[2/18/14AppletoSamsungLetter redisclosures],#6<https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/doc1/035111506712>Exhibit2[2/19/14 SamsungtoAppleLetterredisclosures],#7<https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/doc1/035111506713> Exhibit3[2/22/14SamsungtoAppleLetterdemandingmeetandconfer],# 8<https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/doc1/035111506714>Exhibit4[2/23/14AppletoSamsungLetter refusaltoprovideinforedisclosures],#9<https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/doc1/035111506715> Exhibit5[2/24/14SamsungtoAppleagaindemandingmeetandconfer],# 10<https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/doc1/035111506716>Exhibit6[2/25/14AppletoSamsung Letterdelayingmeetandconfer],#11<https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/doc1/035111506717> Exhibit7[2/25/14SamsungtoAppleLetterrequestinginforedisclosures],# 12<https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/doc1/035111506718>Exhibit8[2/25/14SamsungtoApplere permissiontoshareApples2/23letterwithITC],# 13<https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/doc1/035111506719>Exhibit9[2/26/14SamsungtoNokia LetterreApplesdisclosures],#14<https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/doc1/035111506720> ProposedOrderGrantingMotiontoCompel)(Maroulis,Victoria)(Filedon2/27/2014)(Entered: 02/27/2014) Date FiledBy: CaseNo.12630Docket
7

02/11/2014 Apple 1258AdministrativeMotiontoFileUnderSealLetterstotheCourtfiledbyAppleInc.(a Californiacorporation).(Attachments:#1<https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/doc1/035111454716> Declaration[UnredactedVersionofDocumentSoughttobeSealed]DeclarationofPeterJ. KolovosinSupportofApple'sAdministrativeMotiontoFileDocumentsUnderSeal,# 2<https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/doc1/035111454717>[UnredactedVersionofDocumentSoughtto BeSealed]LetterfromJoshKrevitttoJudgeGrewal,# 3<https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/doc1/035111454718>[UnredactedVersionofDocumentSoughtto BeSealed]LetterfromWilliamF.LeetoJudgeGrewal,# 4<https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/doc1/035111454719>ProposedOrder)(Selwyn,Mark)(Filedon 2/11/2014)(Entered:02/11/2014) 02/18/2014 Nokia 1276AdministrativeMotiontoFileUnderSealfiledbyNokiaCorporation.(Attachments:# 1<https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/doc1/035111473330>DeclarationREDACTEDVERSIONOF DECLARATIONOFRYANW.KOPPELMANINSUPPORTOFAPPLESADMINISTRATIVEMOTIONTOSEAL,# 2<https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/doc1/035111473331>DeclarationUNDERSEALVERSIONOF DECLARATIONOFRYANW.KOPPELMANINSUPPORTOFAPPLESADMINISTRATIVEMOTIONTOSEAL,# 3<https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/doc1/035111473332>ProposedOrder,# 4<https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/doc1/035111473333>Certificate/ProofofService)(Koppelman, Ryan)(Filedon2/18/2014)(Entered:02/18/2014) 02/18/2014 Apple 1278AdministrativeMotiontoFileUnderSealMotiontoRemoveIncorrectlyFiledDocument filedbyAppleInc.(aCaliforniacorporation).(Attachments:# 1<https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/doc1/035111474014>ProposedOrderGrantingMotiontoSeal,# 2<https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/doc1/035111474015>DeclarationofJenniferRhoinsupportof MotiontoSeal,#3<https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/doc1/035111474016>MotiontoRemove,# 4<https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/doc1/035111474017>DeclarationofJenniferRhoinsupportof MotiontoRemove,#5<https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/doc1/035111474018>ProposedOrder GrantingMotiontoRemove)(Lyon,Hervey)(Filedon2/18/2014)(Entered:02/18/2014) 02/18/2014 Samsung 1280AdministrativeMotiontoFileUnderSealfiledbySamsungElectronicsAmerica,Inc.(a NewYorkcorporation),SamsungElectronicsCo.,Ltd.(aKoreancorporation),Samsung TelecommunicationsAmerica,LLC(aDelawarelimitedliabilitycompany).(Attachments:# 1<https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/doc1/035111474297>DeclarationofRobertBecherinSupportof MotiontoSeal,#2<https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/doc1/035111474298>ProposedOrderGranting AdministrativeMotiontoFileUnderSeal,# 3<https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/doc1/035111474299>UnredactedVersionofSamsung'sOpposition toApple'sMotiontoSeal[DocketEntries12582and12583],# 4<https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/doc1/035111474300>DeclarationUnredactedVersionofBecher Decl.InSupportOfSamsung'sOppositiontoApple'sMotiontoSeal[DocketEntries12582and
8

12583],#5<https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/doc1/035111474301>ExhibitUnredactedVersionof Exhibit1toBecherDecl.)(Maroulis,Victoria)(Filedon2/18/2014)(Entered:02/18/2014) 02/18/2014 Apple 1282AdministrativeMotiontoFileUnderSealDeclarationofNonPartyfiledbyApple Inc.(aCaliforniacorporation).(Attachments:# 1<https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/doc1/035111474359>ProposedOrder,# 2<https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/doc1/035111474360>DeclarationofNonParty[AyumiNishino RegardingApplesMotiontoSealDkts.1258and1278])(Lyon,Hervey)(Filedon2/18/2014) (Entered:02/18/2014) 02/19/2014 Apple 1289AdministrativeMotiontoFileUnderSealLetterfromJoshKrevitttotheCourtfiled byAppleInc.(aCaliforniacorporation).(Attachments:# 1<https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/doc1/035111476441>ProposedOrder,# 2<https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/doc1/035111476442>DeclarationofJenniferRho[ISOApples motiontosealDocket1289],#3<https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/doc1/035111476443>Letterfrom JoshKrevitt)(Lyon,Hervey)(Filedon2/19/2014)(Entered:02/19/2014) 02/24/2014 Nokia 1315AdministrativeMotiontoFileUnderSealfiledbyNokiaCorporation.(Attachments:# 1<https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/doc1/035111493635>ProposedOrder,# 2<https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/doc1/035111493636>DeclarationRedactedVersionof DeclarationofRyanKoppelman,#3<https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/doc1/035111493637> DeclarationUnredactedVersionofDeclarationofRyanKoppelman)(Koppelman,Ryan)(Filedon 2/24/2014)(Entered:02/24/2014) 02/24/2014 Apple 1320AdministrativeMotiontoFileUnderSealAmendedDeclarationofNonPartyMs.Ayumi Nishino(D.I.1282<https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/doc1/035011474358>)filedbyAppleInc.(a Californiacorporation).(Attachments:#1<https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/doc1/035111494310> ProposedOrder,#2<https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/doc1/035111494311>AmendedDeclarationof NonParty)(Lyon,Hervey)(Filedon2/24/2014)Modifiedtexton2/25/2014(dhmS,COURTSTAFF). (Entered:02/24/2014) 02/24/2014 Apple 1322AdministrativeMotiontoFileUnderSealDeclarationofNonPartyfiledbyApple Inc.(aCaliforniacorporation).(Attachments:# 1<https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/doc1/035111494318>ProposedOrder,# 2<https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/doc1/035111494319>DeclarationofNonParty[Amended DeclarationofAyumiNishinoRegardingApplesMotiontoSealDockets1258and1278])(Lyon, Hervey)(Filedon2/24/2014)(Entered:02/24/2014)
9

02/24/2014 Apple 1323AdministrativeMotiontoFileUnderSealDeclarationofPeterJ.KolovosinSupportof Samsung'sandApple'sAdministrativeMotionstoFileDocumentsUnderSeal 1280<https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/doc1/035011474296>filedbyAppleInc.(aCalifornia corporation).(Attachments:#1<https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/doc1/035111494397>Declaration ofPeterJ.KolovosinSupportofSamsung'sandApple'sAdministrativeMotionstoFile DocumentsUnderSeal,#2<https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/doc1/035111494398>ProposedOrder GrantingApple'sAdministrativeMotiontoFileDocumentsUnderSeal)(Selwyn,Mark)(Filedon 2/24/2014)(Entered:02/24/2014) ________________________________ NOTICE:Thisemailmessageandallattachmentsmaycontainlegallyprivilegedand confidentialinformationintendedsolelyfortheuseoftheaddressee.Ifyouarenotthe intendedrecipient,youareherebynotifiedthatyoumaynotread,copy,distributeor otherwiseusethismessageoritsattachments.Ifyouhavereceivedthismessageinerror, pleasenotifythesenderbyemailanddeleteallcopiesofthemessageimmediately.
10
1 QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP Charles K. Verhoeven (Cal. Bar No. 170151) 2 charlesverhoeven@quinnemanuel.com 50 California Street, 22nd Floor 3 San Francisco, California 94111 Telephone: (415) 875-6600 4 Facsimile: (415) 875-6700 5 Kathleen M. Sullivan (Cal. Bar No. 242261) kathleensullivan@quinnemanuel.com 6 Kevin P.B. Johnson (Cal. Bar No. 177129) kevinjohnson@quinnemanuel.com 7 Victoria F. Maroulis (Cal. Bar No. 202603) victoriamaroulis@quinnemanuel.com 8 555 Twin Dolphin Drive 5th Floor Redwood Shores, California 94065 9 Telephone: (650) 801-5000 Facsimile: (650) 801-5100 10 William C. Price (Cal. Bar No. 108542) 11 williamprice@quinnemanuel.com Michael T. Zeller (Cal. Bar No. 196417) 12 michaelzeller@quinnemanuel.com 865 S. Figueroa St., 10th Floor 13 Los Angeles, California 90017 Telephone: (213) 443-3000 14 Facsimile: (213) 443-3100 15 Attorneys for SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS 16 AMERICA, INC. and SAMSUNG TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA, LLC 17 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 18 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SAN JOSE DIVISION 19 APPLE INC., a California corporation, CASE NO. 11-cv-01846-LHK-PSG 20 Plaintiff, 21 [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING vs. SAMSUNGS AMENDED MOTION TO 22 COMPEL APPLE TO PROVIDE SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., a INFORMATION REGARDING ITS 23 Korean business entity; SAMSUNG PUBLIC DISCLOSURES OF ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., a New CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION 24 York corporation; SAMSUNG TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA, 25 LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, 26 27 28
Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK-PSG -1[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING SAMSUNGS AMENDED MOTION TO COMPEL APPLE TO PROVIDE INFORMATION REGARDING ITS PUBLIC DISCLOSURES OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
Defendants.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., and Samsung
2 Telecommunications America, LLC (collectively, Samsung) have filed an Amended Motion to 3 Compel Apple to Provide Information Regarding Its Public Disclosures of Confidential 4 Information. 5 Having considered the arguments of the parties and the papers submitted, and good cause
6 having been shown, pursuant to Rule 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court hereby 7 GRANTS Samsungs Amended Motion to Compel Apple to Provide Information Regarding Its 8 Public Disclosures of Confidential Information. 9 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: Within five (5) days of the date of this Order, Apple
10 shall provide Samsung with a sworn declaration describing in substantive detail: 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1. Apples system for protecting CBI in compliance with the protective order, including the names and titles of the persons involved in the October 2013 inadvertent disclosure and what each of them did as part of Apples multi-level review process for the particular filing at issue, and whether that system allowed competitors CBI to be distributed within Apple and/or publicly in October 2013 and thereafter; 2. Whether Apple undertook an investigation of possible earlier disclosures of CBI (such as the October 2013 disclosure) after it learned of its November 2013 disclosures, and whether Apples knowledge of those November 2013 disclosures caused Apple to modify its system to avoid such disclosures in the future; 3. The investigation Apple performed in February 2014, after it claims to have learned of the October 2013 disclosure, including (a) whether Apple or other persons not authorized by the protective order received, disseminated or used the CBI, (b) whether Samsung was promptly informed of this and other disclosures, (c) whether Apple took prompt remedial action and complied with all provisions of the protective order, and (d) what searches Apple had done and what Apple knew before it informed the Court and Samsung that it had no information that the [improperly redacted October 2013] document was distributed on the Internet or otherwise used; and
1 2 3 4 5
4. Nokias and NECs responses to Apples revelation that certain terms of their licenses with Apple were publicly filed in October 2013 and remained on the public docket for four months (including copies of such correspondence).
Apple is further ORDERED to produce a Rule 30(b)(6) witness to testify regarding the
6 same topics within 14 days of the date of this Order. 7 8 9 10 DATED: _________________, 2014 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
IT IS SO ORDERED.
HONORABLE PAUL S. GREWAL United States Magistrate Judge

Samsung Motion To Compel Apple To Provide Information Regarding Public Disclosure of Confidential Information

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Samsung Motion To Compel Apple To Provide Information Regarding Public Disclosure of Confidential Information

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document3009 Filed03/05/14 Page1 of 15

20 APPLE INC., a California corporation, 21 22 vs. Plaintiff,

Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document3009 Filed03/05/14 Page2 of 15

Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document3009 Filed03/05/14 Page3 of 15

Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document3009 Filed03/05/14 Page4 of 15

DATED: March 4, 2014

Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document3009 Filed03/05/14 Page5 of 15

Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document3009 Filed03/05/14 Page6 of 15

references to certain terms of this same Apple-Nokia license.

And even as Apple admitted to its

Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document3009 Filed03/05/14 Page7 of 15

the requested information.

Samsungs request for a meet and confer.

On February 27, 2014, in denying all sealing motions related

Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document3009 Filed03/05/14 Page8 of 15

The Court found that Apples own errors should

Not satisfied with this Courts in camera review of Samsungs privileged

Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document3009 Filed03/05/14 Page9 of 15

Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document3009 Filed03/05/14 Page10 of 15

Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document3009 Filed03/05/14 Page11 of 15

Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document3009 Filed03/05/14 Page12 of 15

Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document3009 Filed03/05/14 Page13 of 15

Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document3009 Filed03/05/14 Page14 of 15

DATED: March 4, 2014

Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document3009 Filed03/05/14 Page15 of 15

Zeller has concurred in this filing.

Dated: March 4, 2013

/s/ Victoria F. Maroulis Victoria F. Maroulis

Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document3009-1 Filed03/05/14 Page1 of 5

Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK DECLARATION OF ROBERT J. BECHER

Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document3009-1 Filed03/05/14 Page2 of 5

Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK DECLARATION OF ROBERT J. BECHER

Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document3009-1 Filed03/05/14 Page3 of 5

On February 23, 2014, Apple sent me a letter that refused to acknowledge my

19 by my colleagues Rachel Kassabian and Ian Shelton on behalf of Samsung.

Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK DECLARATION OF ROBERT J. BECHER

Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document3009-1 Filed03/05/14 Page4 of 5

/s/ Robert J. Becher Robert J. Becher

Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK DECLARATION OF ROBERT J. BECHER

Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document3009-1 Filed03/05/14 Page5 of 5

3 !"#$%&%'()*+, , -*,#)./$(%*#",0('1,2(3($,4)#%$,56$",789:(;:<;=,-,1"&">?,%''"@','1%',Robert J. 4 Becher 1%@,#)*#6&&"A,(*,'1(@,B($(*C+, 5 6 Dated: March 4, 2014 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

/s/ Victoria Maroulis Victoria Maroulis

Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK DECLARATION OF ROBERT J. BECHER

Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document3009-2 Filed03/05/14 Page1 of 2

Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document3009-2 Filed03/05/14 Page2 of 2

Brian M. Buroker Direct: +1 202.955.8541 Fax: +1 202.530.4200 BBuroker@gibsondunn.com

/s/ Brian M. Buroker

Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document3009-3 Filed03/05/14 Page1 of 3

Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document3009-3 Filed03/05/14 Page2 of 3

trial lawyers | los angeles

quinn emanuel urquhart & sullivan, llp

Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document3009-3 Filed03/05/14 Page3 of 3

We look forward to your response. Sincerely,

Robert J. Becher cc: Mark Selwyn, Esq. RJB

Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document3009-4 Filed03/05/14 Page1 of 2

Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document3009-4 Filed03/05/14 Page2 of 2

trial lawyers | los angeles

Robert J. Becher cc: Mark Selwyn, Esq.

quinn emanuel urquhart & sullivan, llp

Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document3009-5 Filed03/05/14 Page1 of 3

Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document3009-5 Filed03/05/14 Page2 of 3

Brian M. Buroker Direct: +1 202.955.8541 Fax: +1 202.530.4200 BBuroker@gibsondunn.com 03290-00026

Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document3009-5 Filed03/05/14 Page3 of 3

3 !"#$%&%'()+, , -,#)./$(%#",0('1,2(3($,4)#%$,56$",789:(;:<;=,-,1"&">?,%''"@','1%',Robert J. 4 Becher 1%@,#)#6&&"A,(,'1(@,B($(C+, 5 6 Dated: March 4, 2014 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28