samsung motion to compel apple to provide information regarding public disclosure of confidential...

8/12/2019 Samsung Motion to Compel Apple to Provide Information Regarding Public Disclosure of Confidential Information

1/62

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK

SAMSUNGS AMENDED MOTION TO COMPEL APPLE TO PROVIDE INFORMATION REGARDING ITSPUBLIC DISCLOSURES OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION

QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLPCharles K. Verhoeven (Cal. Bar No. 170151)[email protected] California Street, 22

ndFloor

San Francisco, California 94111Telephone: (415) 875-6600

Facsimile: (415) 875-6700

Kathleen M. Sullivan (Cal. Bar No. 242261)[email protected] P.B. Johnson (Cal. Bar No. 177129)[email protected] F. Maroulis (Cal. Bar No. 202603)[email protected] Twin Dolphin Drive 5

thFloor

Redwood Shores, California 94065Telephone: (650) 801-5000Facsimile: (650) 801-5100

William C. Price (Bar No. 108542)[email protected] T. Zeller (Cal. Bar No. 196417)[email protected] S. Figueroa St., 10th FloorLos Angeles, California 90017Telephone: (213) 443-3000Facsimile: (213) 443-3100

Attorneys for SAMSUNG ELECTRONICSCO., LTD., SAMSUNG ELECTRONICSAMERICA, INC. and SAMSUNGTELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA, LLC

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SAN JOSE DIVISION

APPLE INC., a California corporation,

Plaintiff,

vs.

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., aKorean business entity; SAMSUNGELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., a NewYork corporation; SAMSUNGTELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA,LLC, a Delaware limited liability company,

Defendants.

CASE NO. 11-cv-01846-LHK

SAMSUNGS AMENDED NOTICE OF

MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL

APPLE TO PROVIDE INFORMATION

REGARDING ITS PUBLIC

DISCLOSURES OF CONFIDENTIALINFORMATION

Date: April 8, 2014Time: 10:00 amJudge: Hon. Paul S. GrewalPlace: Courtroom 5, 4th Floor

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


2/62

-ii- Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK


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



3/62

-iii- Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK


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 theOctober 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 withApple 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.



4/62

-iv- Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK


DATED: March 4, 2014 Respectfully submitted,

QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART &SULLIVAN, LLP

By /s/ Michael T. Zeller

Charles K. Verhoeven

Kathleen M. SullivanKevin P.B. Johnson

Victoria F. MaroulisWilliam C. Price

Michael T. Zeller

Attorneys for SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO.,LTD., SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA,

INC. and SAMSUNGTELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA, LLC



5/62

-1- Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK


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. In

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

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 againpublicly 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

disclosures is plain. Until Apple provides this information, Samsung is unable to determine

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



6/62

-2- Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK


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. Dkt.

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

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



7/62

-3- Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK


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. Id., Ex. 2. Apple did not respond. Samsung asked again on February 22. Id., Ex.

3. Samsung also requested to meet and confer regarding a motion to compel Apple to provide

the requested information. Id. Apple refused to provide the requested information and ignored

Samsungs request for a meet and confer. Id., Ex. 4 (Apples February 23 letter declining to

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. Becher Dec., Ex. 5. Apple refused to meet and confer until February 26. Id.,

Ex. 6. 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

occurrence. Apple has publicly field its competitors CBI on at least two other occasions. Dkt.

2835-8. 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. Samsung opposed these sealing requests. Dkt. 2993-3;

Dkt. 2977-3; Dkt. 1280-3 (12-630). 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



8/62

-4- Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK


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

relatedto the October 10 disclosure should be sealed indefinitelybecause individuals already in

possessionof 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. Dkt.

2985-3, 5; Dkt. 1315-3 (12-630), 7 (same). 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-productof 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. Id.at 3

(emphasis added). Not satisfied with this Courts in camerareview 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. Id.

Samsung will be opposing Nokias motion to compel in due course.



9/62

-5- Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK


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

Courts February 27 unsealing order by publicly filing the relevant documents that day. As a

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 Apple-

Nokia 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.



10/62

-6- Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK


I. INFORMATION REGARDING APPLES SYSTEM FOR PROTECTING CBI ANDCOMPLIANCE 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

system for protecting CBI, and the circumstances surrounding the October 2013 disclosure. Just

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



11/62

-7- Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK


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 AFTERTHE 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.

1 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 amountof fees andcosts awarded should be reduced in light of Apples conduct.



12/62

-8- Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK


III. INFORMATION REGARDING APPLES FEBRUARY 2014 INVESTIGATION OFITS OWN IMPROPER DISCLOSURE OF THE APPLE/NOKIA LICENSE TERMSTO 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. This information is also necessary to test Apples representations to Samsung

and the Court. 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. The fee award should be reduced

accordingly.



13/62

-9- Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK


IV. INFORMATION REGARDING NOKIAS RESPONSE TO APPLES IMPROPERDISCLOSURE OF THE APPLE/NOKIA LICENSE TERMS TO THE PUBLIC ISRELEVANT.

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



14/62

-10- Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK


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. SullivanKevin P.B. Johnson

Victoria F. MaroulisWilliam C. Price

Michael T. Zeller

Attorneys for SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO.,LTD., SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA,

INC. and SAMSUNGTELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA, LLC



15/62

-11- Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK


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. MaroulisVictoria F. Maroulis



16/62

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2198.51855/5781458.2 Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHKDECLARATION OF ROBERT J. BECHER

QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLPCharles K. Verhoeven (Bar No. 170151)[email protected] California Street, 22nd FloorSan Francisco, California 94111Telephone: (415) 875-6600

Facsimile: (415) 875-6700

Kevin P.B. Johnson (Bar No. 177129)[email protected] F. Maroulis (Bar No. 202603)[email protected] Twin Dolphin Drive, 5th FloorRedwood Shores, California 94065-2139Telephone: (650) 801-5000Facsimile: (650) 801-5100

William C. Price (Bar No. 108542)[email protected]

Michael T. Zeller (Bar No. 196417)[email protected] S. Figueroa St., 10th FloorLos Angeles, California 90017Telephone: (213) 443-3000Facsimile: (213) 443-3100

Attorneys for SAMSUNG ELECTRONICSCO., LTD., SAMSUNG ELECTRONICSAMERICA, INC. and SAMSUNGTELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA, LLC

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SAN JOSE DIVISION

APPLE INC., a California corporation,

Plaintiff,

vs.

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., aKorean business entity; SAMSUNGELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., a NewYork corporation; SAMSUNGTELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA,LLC, a Delaware limited liability company,

Defendants.

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

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


17/62

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2198.51855/5781458.2

-1-Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK

DECLARATION OF ROBERT J. BECHER

I, Robert J. Becher, declare:

1. I am a Partner at Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, counsel for SamsungElectronics Co., Ltd, Samsung Electronics America, Inc., and Samsung Telecommunications

America, LLC (collectively Samsung). I have personal knowledge of the facts set forth in this

declaration, except as otherwise noted, and, if called as a witness, could and would testify to those

facts under oath.

2. I submit this declaration in support of Samsungs Amended Motion to CompelApple to Provide Information regarding its Public Disclosures of Confidential Information

(Amended Motion).

3. Certain correspondence cited in Samsungs Amended Motion is attached to myprior declarations filed in the 11-1846 action and/or the 12-630 action and not reattached to the

present declaration. SeeDkt. 2964-4, Exs. 13-20 (Declaration of Robert J. Becher in Support of

Samsungs February 17, 2014 Letter Brief Regarding Fees and Costs); Dkt. 1280-4, Ex. 1 (Case

No. 12-630) (Declaration of Robert J. Becher in Support of Samsungs Opposition to Apples

Motion to Seal Docket Entries 1258-2 and 1258-3).

4. On February 18, 2014, Apple sent me a letter that did not provide sufficient detailin response to my questions regarding Apples October 10 public filing of the Apple-Nokia and

Apple-NEC licenses. A true and correct copy of Apples February 18 letter to me is attached as

Exhibit 1.

5. On February 19, 2014, I sent a letter to Apple explaining that it had failed toadequately respond to Samsungs requests for additional information regarding Apples October

10 public filing of the Apple-Nokia and Apple-NEC licenses. A true and correct copy of my

February 19 letter to Apple is attached as Exhibit 2.

6. On February 22, 2014, I sent another letter to Apple explaining that it had failed torespond to my February 19 letter requesting additional information regarding Apples October 10

public filing of the Apple-Nokia and Apple-NEC licenses. I further requested to meet and confer

regarding a motion to compel Apple to provide the requested information. A true and correct

copy of my February 22 letter to Apple is attached as Exhibit 3.



18/62

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2198.51855/5781458.2



7. On February 23, 2014, Apple sent me a letter that refused to acknowledge myrequest to meet and confer and refused to provide several categories of additional information

regarding Apples October 10 public filing of the Apple-Nokia and Apple-NEC licenses. A true

and correct copy of Apples February 23 letter to me is attached as Exhibit 4.

8. On February 24, 2014, I sent a letter to Apple again requesting a meet and confer.A true and correct copy of my February 24 letter to Apple is attached as Exhibit 5.

9. On February 25, 2014, Apple sent me a letter refusing to meet and confer onFebruary 25 as Samsung proposed but offering to meet and confer on February 26. A true and

correct copy of Apples February 25 letter to me is attached as Exhibit 6.

10. On February 25, 2014, I sent a letter to Apple explaining that Apple wasunreasonably delaying the meet and confer, but nevertheless requested that Apple provide the

requested information at the meet and confer on February 26. A true and correct copy of my

February 25 letter to Apple is attached as Exhibit 7.

11. On February 25, I sent an email to Apple asking whether Samsung could shareApples February 23 letter with the ITC in connection with the 794 Investigation, and on the same

day, Apple refused consent. A true and correct copy of the email chain reflecting that exchange

is attached as Exhibit 8.

12. The parties held a telephonic meet and confer on February 26, which was attendedby my colleagues Rachel Kassabian and Ian Shelton on behalf of Samsung. I am informed that

Apple refused to provide the information Samsung is seeking during the call, or to commit to

providing it at any point in the future. I am further informed that Samsung stated that if Apple

refused to provide the information, Samsung would seek the assistance of the Court in obtaining

more formal discovery.

13. On February 26, I sent a letter to Nokia asking it to describe or produce allcommunications between Apple and Nokia regarding the subject of Apples October 10 public

filing of the Apple-Nokia license terms. I requested that they provide the information to

Samsung before the February 27 hearing and be prepared to discuss those communications at the



19/62

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2198.51855/5781458.2



hearing. As of the time of filing the present declaration, I had received no response from Nokia.

A true and correct copy of my February 26 letter to Nokia is attached as Exhibit 9.

14. On February 28 and March 1, 2014, my colleague Ian Shelton engaged in emailcorrespondence with counsel for Apple and Nokia regarding the public filing of the February 17

fees and costs letters and related filings in compliance with the Courts February 28 unsealing

order, Dkt. 2997. True and correct copies of the email chains reflecting that exchange is attached

as Exhibit 10.

I declare under penalty of perjury of the laws of the United States that the foregoing is true

and correct. Executed in Los Angeles, California on March 4, 2014.

/s/ Robert J. Becher

Robert J. Becher



20/62

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2198.51855/5781458.2



!""#$"!"%&'

I, Victoria Maroulis, am the ECF User whose ID and password are being used to file this

!"#$%&%'()*+ -* #)./$(%*#" 0('1 2(3($ 4)#%$ 56$" 789:(;:? %''"@' '1%' Robert J.

Becher 1%@ #)*#6&&"A (* '1(@ B($(*C+

Dated: March 4, 2014 By: /s/ Victoria MaroulisVictoria Maroulis



21/62

EXHIBIT 1



22/62

Brian M. BurokerDirect: +1 202.955.8541Fax: +1 [email protected]

February 18, 2014

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS EYES ONLY

VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL

Robert BecherQuinn 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 themotions to seal the same.

Regarding your information about LexisNexis, upon receipt of your letter, we immediatelycontacted 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



23/62

EXHIBIT 2



24/62

quinn emanuel trial lawyers | los angeles865 South Figueroa Street, 10th Floor, Los Angeles, California 90017-2543 | TEL(213) 443-3000 FAX(213) 443-3100

WRITER'S DIRECT DIALNO.

(213) 443-3182

WRITER'S INTERNET ADDRESS

[email protected]

quinn emanuel urquhart & sullivan, llp

NEW YORK | SAN FRANCISCO | SILICON VALLEY | CHICAGO | WASHINGTON, DC | LONDON | TOKYO | MANNHEIM | MOSCOW | HAMBURG | PARIS |

MUNICH | SYDNEY | HONG KONG

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: Apple v. Samsung

Brian:

We write in response to your February 18, 2014 letter. You did not respond to several of thespecific 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 NEChave 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 theInternet or otherwise used.



25/62

2

We look forward to your response.

Sincerely,

Robert J. Becher

cc: Mark Selwyn, Esq.

RJB

02198.51855/5773516.1



26/62

EXHIBIT 3



27/62

quinn emanuel trial lawyers | los angeles865 South Figueroa Street, 10th Floor, Los Angeles, California 90017-2543 | TEL(213) 443-3000 FAX(213) 443-3100


(213) 443-3182


[email protected]






February 22, 2014





Brian:

We wrote you on February 14, 2014 and posed very specific questions regarding Apples filingof 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 thatApples 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-NEClicense 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,

Robert J. Becher




28/62

EXHIBIT 4



29/62


03290-00026

February 23, 2014


VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL

Robert BecherQuinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP

865 S. Figueroa Street



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 20electronic 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 obligationto 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 nocopy 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 supportingApples motion to remove the improperly-redacted document from the docket.



30/62

Robert BecherFebruary 23, 2014

Page 2

Sincerely,




31/62

EXHIBIT 5



32/62

quinn emanuel trial lawyers | los angeles865 South Figueroa Street, 10th Floor, Los Angeles, California 90017-2543 | TEL (213) 443-3000 FAX (213) 443-3100


(213) 443-3182


[email protected]






February 24, 2014





Dear Brian:

I write in response to your February 23 letter. My February 22 letter unambiguously askedwhen 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 andconfer? If not, please confirm your availability for a meet and confer call tomorrow morning.

We propose 11 a.m.

Sincerely,

Robert J. Becher


RJB



33/62

EXHIBIT 6



34/62


03290-00026

February 25, 2014


VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL

Robert BecherQuinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP

865 S. Figueroa Street



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,




35/62

EXHIBIT 7



36/62



(213) 443-3182


[email protected]






February 25, 2014





Brian:

You have provided no basis for your refusal to meet and confer today, and we see no reason todelay 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

Sincerely,

Robert J. Becher

cc: Mark Selwyn, Esq.02198.51855/5783723.1



37/62

EXHIBIT 8



38/62

1

From:Robert BecherSent:Wednesday, February 26, 2014 11:38 AMTo:'Rho, Jennifer'; Ian SheltonCc:'Buroker, Brian M.'; 'Mark Selwyn ([email protected])'; 'Krevitt, Josh'; ''William F. Lee'

([email protected]) ([email protected])'Subject:RE: Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd. et al. - Correspondence

.

.

.

,

From:Rho, Jennifer [mailto:[email protected]]Sent:Wednesday, February 26, 2014 9:04 AMTo:Robert Becher; Ian SheltonCc:Buroker, Brian M.; 'Mark Selwyn ([email protected])'; Krevitt, Josh; ''William F. Lee'([email protected]) ([email protected])'Subject:RE: Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd. et al. - Correspondence

,

, .

,

Jennifer J. Rho

GIBSON DUNN

Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP333 South Grand Avenue, Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197Tel +1 213.229.7103Fax +1 [email protected] www.gibsondunn.com

From:Robert Becher [mailto:[email protected]]Sent:Tuesday, February 25, 2014 12:56 AMTo:Rho, Jennifer; Ian SheltonCc:Buroker, Brian M.; 'Mark Selwyn ([email protected])'; Krevitt, Josh; ''William F. Lee'([email protected]) ([email protected])'Subject:RE: Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd. et al. - Correspondence

,



39/62

2

From:Rho, Jennifer [mailto:[email protected]]Sent:Monday, February 24, 2014 4:25 AMTo:Ian Shelton; Robert BecherCc:Buroker, Brian M.; Mark Selwyn ([email protected]); Krevitt, Josh; 'William F. Lee'

([email protected]) ([email protected])Subject:Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd. et al. - Correspondence

,

.

,

Jennifer J. Rho

GIBSON DUNN

Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP333 South Grand Avenue, Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197Tel +1 213.229.7103Fax +1 213.229.6103

[email protected] 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.



40/62

EXHIBIT 9



41/62



(213) 443-3182


[email protected]




CONTAINS INFORMATION FILED UNDER SEAL BY NOKIA

VIA EMAIL

February 26, 2014

Ryan W. Koppelman

Randall L. AllenAlston & Bird, LLP

275 Middlefield Road, Suite 150

Menlo Park, CA [email protected]

[email protected]


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, whichremained 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 andamount 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 Samsungimmediately, 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,

Robert J. BecherRJB



42/62

EXHIBIT 10



43/62



44/62

2

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

From:Herriot, Liv [mailto:[email protected]]Sent:Friday, February 28, 2014 11:21 PMTo:Ian Shelton; Samsung Damages TrialTeam; Samsung v. AppleCc:'[email protected]'; WH Apple Samsung NDCal Service; Silhasek, Michael;'Apple/[email protected]'; '[email protected]'; '[email protected]'

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:[email protected]]Sent:Friday, February 28, 2014 5:58 PMTo:Herriot, Liv; Samsung Damages TrialTeam; Samsung v. AppleCc:'[email protected]'; WH Apple Samsung NDCal Service; Silhasek, Michael;'Apple/[email protected]'; '[email protected]'; '[email protected]'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

deadlineset

forth

in

the

order.

Samsung

intends

to

comply

and

will

not

allow

Apples

and

Nokias

delay

to

cause

Samsungtobeoutofcompliance. AppleandNokiaarenotincompliancewiththeCourtsorder,andSamsungreserves

allrights.

ApplestatesthatSamsungshouldnotcomplywiththeCourtsorderbecauseNECshouldbegivennoticeandan

opportunitytoprovideanyobjections. However,Applescounselenteredanappearanceandfileddeclarationson

behalfofNEC. IfNECwasnotproperlynotifiedaboutthesubstanceofthehearingortheCourtsorderyesterday,itwas

ApplesfaultforfailingtoinformNEC.



45/62

3

SamsungprovidednoticeofitspublicfilingtoensurethatAppleandNokiadonothaveotherlegitimategroundsfor

sealingthatwerenotrejectedbytheCourt. YetinresponsetoSamsungsnotification,neitherApplenorNokiaprovide

anyotherlegitimategroundsforsealing. Samsungnotesthatitsfilingsarerelatedandnotvoluminous,andthe

highlightedsealingpapersarealreadypubliclyfiled. Inanyevent,thenumberoffilingswascausedbyApplesand

Nokiasvoluminoussealingrequests. AppleandNokiaarewellawareofthecontentofthosefilings. Theircontinued

delayinthefaceofacourtorderistroubling.

SamsungintendstocomplywiththeCourtsorderonandafter5pmPTtomorrowunlessApple,NEC,orNokiaeither

providesome

legitimate

basis

for

not

complying

with

the

Courts

order

or

seek

other

relief.

Ian SheltonAssociateQuinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP865 S. Figueroa Street, 10th FloorLos Angeles, CA 90017213-443-3624 Direct213-443-3000 Main Office Number213-443-3100 [email protected]

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 messagemay 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 intendedrecipient 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 immediatelyby e-mail, and delete the original message.

From:Herriot, Liv [mailto:[email protected]]

Sent:Friday, February 28, 2014 4:34 PMTo:Ian Shelton; Samsung Damages TrialTeam; Samsung v. AppleCc:'[email protected]'; WH Apple Samsung NDCal Service; Silhasek, Michael;'Apple/[email protected]'; '[email protected]'; '[email protected]'

Subject:RE: Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd. et al., Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK

Ian,

WhileApple

does

not

object

for

itself,

we

believe

that

NEC

should

be

given

notice

and

an

opportunity

to

provide

any

objections. Accordingly,webelieveitwouldbeappropriateforSamsungtowaituntilatleastMondaybefore

proceedingtomakepublicfilings.

PleaseconfirmwithApplebeforeyouproceedtofilepublicly.

Thankyou,

Liv

From:Ian Shelton [mailto:[email protected]]Sent:Friday, February 28, 2014 3:20 PMTo:Ian Shelton; Herriot, Liv; Samsung Damages TrialTeam; Samsung v. AppleCc:'[email protected]'; WH Apple Samsung NDCal Service; Silhasek, Michael;'Apple/[email protected]'; '[email protected]'; '[email protected]'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.



46/62

4

Samsungwillpubliclyfileallofitsowndocumentshighlightedbelow,includingallexhibitstoitsFebruary17letterbrief,

onorafter5pmPTtodayunlessSamsunghearsparticularizedobjectionsfromAppleorNokiabeforethen.

FortheremainingdocumentslistedbelowthatwerefiledbyAppleorNokia,pleaseconfirmwhenAppleandNokia

intendtopubliclyfilethemincompliancewiththeCourtsOrder.

Regards,

Ian SheltonAssociateQuinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP865 S. Figueroa Street, 10th FloorLos Angeles, CA 90017213-443-3624 Direct213-443-3000 Main Office Number213-443-3100 [email protected]

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 messagemay 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 intendedrecipient or agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this document in error and that anyreview, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediatelyby e-mail, and delete the original message.

Date FiledBy: CaseNo.111846Docket

02/17/2014 Apple 2958 AdministrativeMotiontoFileUnderSealApple'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 2964 AdministrativeMotiontoFileUnderSealSamsung'sLetterBriefreFeesandCostsfiled

bySamsungElectronicsAmerica,Inc.,SamsungElectronicsCo.Ltd.,Samsung

TelecommunicationsAmerica,

LLC.

(Attachments:

#1Becher

Declaration

re

Motion

to

Seal,

#

2ProposedOrder,#3Samsung'sLetterBrief,#4BecherDeclaration,#5Trac

Declaration)(Maroulis,Victoria)(Filedon2/17/2014)(Entered:02/17/2014)

02/17/2014 Samsung 2965 EXHIBITSre2964AdministrativeMotiontoFileUnderSealSamsung'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

[2/14/14Apple

Letter

attaching

billing

chart],

#8Exhibit

9[2/16/14

Apple

Letter

containing

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



47/62

5

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)

02/21/2014 Nokia 2973 AdministrativeMotiontoFileUnderSealfiledbyNokiaCorporation.(Attachments:#1

DeclarationREDACTEDVERSIONOFDeclarationofRyanW.KoppelmanInSupportofApple's

andSamsung's

Administrative

Motions

to

Seal

[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)

02/21/2014 Apple 2974 AdministrativeMotiontoFileUnderSealNoticeofApple'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)

02/21/2014

Apple

2975

Administrative

Motion

to

File

Under

Seal

Declaration

of

Non

Party

filed

by

Apple

Inc..

(Attachments:#1Declaration[Nishino(NEC)DecreApplesAdminMtntoFileDocsUnder

Seal],#2Declaration[Nishino(NEC)DecreSamsungsAdminMtntoFileDocsUnderSeal],#

3ProposedOrder)(Selwyn,Mark)(Filedon2/21/2014)(Entered:02/21/2014)

02/21/2014 Apple 2976 AdministrativeMotiontoFileUnderSealfiledbyAppleInc..(Attachments:#1

UnredactedVersionofDeclarationofPeterJ.KolovosInSupportofSamsung'sAdministrative

MotiontoFileDocumentsUnderSeal(Dkt.2964),#2ProposedOrder)(Selwyn,Mark)(Filed

on2/21/2014)(Entered:02/21/2014)

02/21/2014 Samsung 2977 AdministrativeMotiontoFileUnderSealfiledbySamsungElectronicsAmerica,Inc.,

SamsungElectronicsCo.Ltd.,SamsungTelecommunicationsAmerica,LLC.(Attachments:#1

DeclarationofRobertJ.Becher,#2ProposedOrder,#3Samsung'sOppositionto

AdministrativeMotiontoSeal(Dkt.2958)theKolovosDeclaration(Dkt.29581)andApple's

February17,

2014

Letter

Brief

(Dkt.

2958

3)

and

Opposition

to

Administrative

Motion

to

Seal

(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)


ProposedOrder,#2RedactedVersionoftheDeclarationofRyanKoppelmaninSupportof

SamsungsAdministrativeMotiontoFileDocumentUnderSeal[Dkt.No.2977],#3Unredacted

VersionoftheDeclarationofRyanKoppelmaninSupportofSamsungsAdministrativeMotion

toFileDocumentUnderSeal[Dkt.No.2977])(Koppelman,Ryan)(Filedon2/25/2014)

(Entered:02/25/2014)

02/25/2014 Apple 2991 AdministrativeMotiontoFileUnderSealDeclarationofPeterJ.KolovosinSupportof

Samsung'sand

Apple's

Administrative

Motions

to

File

Documents

Under

Seal

2977

filed

by

AppleInc..(Attachments:#1UnredactedVersionofDeclarationofPeterJ.KolovosinSupport

ofApple'sandSamsung'sAdministrativeMotionstoFileDocumentUnderSeal,#2Proposed

Order)(Selwyn,Mark)(Filedon2/25/2014)(Entered:02/25/2014)

02/25/2014 Samsung 2993 AdministrativeMotiontoFileUnderSealfiledbySamsungElectronicsAmerica,Inc.,

SamsungElectronicsCo.Ltd.,SamsungTelecommunicationsAmerica,LLC.(Attachments:#1

DeclarationofRobertJ.BecherinSupportofMotiontoSeal,#2ProposedOrderDenying

AdministrativeMotiontoFileunderSeal,#3UnredactedVersionofSamsung'sOppositionto

AdministrativeMotiontoSealDkt.29773)(Fazio,Michael)(Filedon2/25/2014)(Entered:

02/25/2014)



48/62

6

02/27/2014 Samsung 2996 AdministrativeMotiontoFileUnderSealSamsung'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

provideinfo

re

disclosures],

#9Exhibit

5[2/24/14

Samsung

to

Apple

again

demanding

meet

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: CaseNo.12630Docket

02/11/2014 Apple 1258 AdministrativeMotiontoFileUnderSealLetterstotheCourtfiledbyAppleInc.(a

Californiacorporation).(Attachments:#1Declaration[UnredactedVersionofDocument

Sought

to

be

Sealed]

Declaration

of

Peter

J.

Kolovos

in

Support

of

Apple's

Administrative

MotiontoFileDocumentsUnderSeal,#2[UnredactedVersionofDocumentSoughttoBe

Sealed]LetterfromJoshKrevitttoJudgeGrewal,#3[UnredactedVersionofDocumentSought

toBeSealed]LetterfromWilliamF.LeetoJudgeGrewal,#4ProposedOrder)(Selwyn,Mark)

(Filedon2/11/2014)(Entered:02/11/2014)


DeclarationREDACTEDVERSIONOFDECLARATIONOFRYANW.KOPPELMANINSUPPORTOF

APPLESADMINISTRATIVEMOTIONTOSEAL,#2DeclarationUNDERSEALVERSIONOF

DECLARATIONOFRYANW.KOPPELMANINSUPPORTOFAPPLESADMINISTRATIVEMOTIONTO

SEAL,#3ProposedOrder,#4Certificate/ProofofService)(Koppelman,Ryan)(Filedon

2/18/2014)(Entered:02/18/2014)

02/18/2014 Apple 1278 AdministrativeMotiontoFileUnderSealMotiontoRemoveIncorrectlyFiledDocument

filedby

Apple

Inc.(a

California

corporation).

(Attachments:

#1Proposed

Order

Granting

MotiontoSeal,#2DeclarationofJenniferRhoinsupportofMotiontoSeal,#3Motionto

Remove,#4DeclarationofJenniferRhoinsupportofMotiontoRemove,#5ProposedOrder

GrantingMotiontoRemove)(Lyon,Hervey)(Filedon2/18/2014)(Entered:02/18/2014)

02/18/2014 Samsung 1280 AdministrativeMotiontoFileUnderSealfiledbySamsungElectronicsAmerica,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

Entries1258

2and

1258

3],

#5Exhibit

Unredacted

Version

of

Exhibit

1to

Becher

Decl.)(Maroulis,Victoria)(Filedon2/18/2014)(Entered:02/18/2014)

02/18/2014 Apple 1282 AdministrativeMotiontoFileUnderSealDeclarationofNonPartyfiledbyAppleInc.(a

Californiacorporation).(Attachments:#1ProposedOrder,#2DeclarationofNonParty

[AyumiNishinoRegardingApplesMotiontoSealDkts.1258and1278])(Lyon,Hervey)(Filed

on2/18/2014)(Entered:02/18/2014)

02/19/2014 Apple 1289 AdministrativeMotiontoFileUnderSealLetterfromJoshKrevitttotheCourtfiledby

AppleInc.(aCaliforniacorporation).(Attachments:#1ProposedOrder,#2Declarationof

JenniferRho[ISOApplesmotiontosealDocket1289],#3LetterfromJoshKrevitt)(Lyon,

Hervey)(Filedon2/19/2014)(Entered:02/19/2014)



49/62

7


ProposedOrder,#2DeclarationRedactedVersionofDeclarationofRyanKoppelman,#3

DeclarationUnredactedVersionofDeclarationofRyanKoppelman)(Koppelman,Ryan)(Filed

on2/24/2014)(Entered:02/24/2014)

02/24/2014 Apple 1320 AdministrativeMotiontoFileUnderSealAmendedDeclarationofNonPartyMs.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)

02/24/2014Apple

1322Administrative

Motion

to

File

Under

Seal

Declaration

of

Non

Party

filed

by

Apple

Inc.(a

Californiacorporation).(Attachments:#1ProposedOrder,#2DeclarationofNonParty

[AmendedDeclarationofAyumiNishinoRegardingApplesMotiontoSealDockets1258and

1278])(Lyon,Hervey)(Filedon2/24/2014)(Entered:02/24/2014)

02/24/2014 Apple 1323 AdministrativeMotiontoFileUnderSealDeclarationofPeterJ.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)



50/62



51/62

2

Received:Friday,28Feb2014,5:58PMTo:Herriot,Liv[[email protected]];SamsungDamagesTrialTeam[[email protected]];Samsungv.Apple[[email protected]]CC:'[email protected]'[[email protected]];WHAppleSamsungNDCalService[[email protected]];Silhasek,Michael[[email protected]];'Apple/[email protected]'[Apple/[email protected]];Koppelman,Ryan[[email protected]];Allen,Randall[[email protected]]

Subject:RE:

Apple

Inc.

v.Samsung

Elecs.

Co.,

Ltd.

etal.,

Case

No.

11

cv01846

LHK

Counsel:

Atthehearingyesterday,theCourtorallydeniedallsealingmotionsandthenorderedthatthedocumentsshallbefiledonthepublicdocket. Dkt.2997. Thedeadlineforcompliancewithacourtorderisimmediately,absentsomeotherdeadlinesetforthintheorder.SamsungintendstocomplyandwillnotallowApplesandNokiasdelaytocauseSamsungtobeoutofcompliance. AppleandNokiaarenotincompliancewiththeCourtsorder,andSamsungreservesallrights.

ApplestatesthatSamsungshouldnotcomplywiththeCourtsorderbecauseNECshouldbe

given

notice

and

an

opportunity

to

provide

any

objections.

However,

Apples

counsel

entered

anappearanceandfileddeclarationsonbehalfofNEC. IfNECwasnotproperlynotifiedaboutthesubstanceofthehearingortheCourtsorderyesterday,itwasApplesfaultforfailingtoinformNEC.

SamsungprovidednoticeofitspublicfilingtoensurethatAppleandNokiadono