P. 1
14-03-05 Samsung Motion to Compel Apple Re. Public Disclosures of Confidential Info

14-03-05 Samsung Motion to Compel Apple Re. Public Disclosures of Confidential Info

|Views: 1,008,421|Likes:
Veröffentlicht vonFlorian Mueller

More info:

Published by: Florian Mueller on Mar 05, 2014
Urheberrecht:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

03/27/2014

pdf

text

original

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 SAMSUNG’S 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 SAMSUNG’S AMENDED MOTION TO COMPEL APPLE TO PROVIDE INFORMATION REGARDING ITS PUBLIC DISCLOSURES OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION

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

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 Apple’s October 2013 public filing of CBI concerning certain terms of the Apple-Nokia and Apple-NEC licenses, and its subsequent filing of Samsung’s 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. Apple’s 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 Apple’s “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 -iiSAMSUNG’S AMENDED MOTION TO COMPEL APPLE TO PROVIDE INFORMATION REGARDING ITS PUBLIC DISCLOSURES OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION

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

the October 2013 disclosure) after it learned of its November 2013 disclosures, and whether Apple’s 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. Nokia’s and NEC’s responses to Apple’s 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). SAMSUNG’S 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 Apple’s October 10, 2013 public disclosure of the terms of its licenses with Nokia and NEC on February 11, 2014. Samsung’s 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 -iiiSAMSUNG’S AMENDED MOTION TO COMPEL APPLE TO PROVIDE INFORMATION REGARDING ITS PUBLIC DISCLOSURES OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION

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

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 -ivSAMSUNG’S AMENDED MOTION TO COMPEL APPLE TO PROVIDE INFORMATION REGARDING ITS PUBLIC DISCLOSURES OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION

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

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 Apple’s October 2013 public filing of CBI regarding certain terms of the Apple-Nokia license. Apple’s 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 CBI—this time belonging to its competitors, including Samsung and Google. Apple’s repeated disclosures of CBI warrants some investigation. Indeed, given Apple’s

aggressive campaign to seek sanctions against Samsung for its inadvertent disclosures, including extensive demands for discovery, Apple has no colorable basis for refusing Samsung’s reasonable inquiries. The need for transparency and evenhandedness concerning Apple’s 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. Samsung’s motion for a deposition and a declaration should be granted. Factual Background Apple’s 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 Apple’s licenses with Nokia and NEC on PACER and that this filing had remained publicly accessible for at least four months. Dkt. 2965-12. Nokia’s 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 (Nokia’s 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 -1SAMSUNG’S AMENDED MOTION TO COMPEL Case APPLE No. TO PROVIDE INFORMATION REGARDING ITS PUBLIC DISCLOSURES OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION

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

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 Apple’s 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 Apple’s public filing of the Apple-Nokia and Apple-NEC licensing information, including “the circumstances surrounding the Filing and Apple’s 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 Apple’s notice.” Id. Apple responded with little information,

claiming that it had discovered its mistake “in the process of reviewing Apple’s 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

Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK -2SAMSUNG’S AMENDED MOTION TO COMPEL Case APPLE No. TO PROVIDE INFORMATION REGARDING ITS PUBLIC DISCLOSURES OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION

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

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 (Apple’s February 23 letter declining to

the requested information.

Samsung’s 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. Apple’s Public Filing of Other CBI. Apple’s 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.

Apple’s and Nokia’s 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 Apple’s 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 Apple’s argument that the
Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK -3SAMSUNG’S AMENDED MOTION TO COMPEL Case APPLE No. TO PROVIDE INFORMATION REGARDING ITS PUBLIC DISCLOSURES OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION

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

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 Nokia’s 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 Apple’s own errors should

not be hidden from public view after Apple had injected the adequacy of Samsung’s own system and subsequent remedial measures into the public domain. Nokia’s Failure to Respond to Samsung’s 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 Apple’s October 10 public filing. The

same day, Samsung immediately requested Nokia’s consent and production of the information. Becher Decl., Ex. 9. As of this filing, Nokia has not responded to Samsung’s request.

Nokia’s 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 Nokia’s 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 Nokia’s CBI resides,” including a log prepared by Stroz Friedberg. Dkt. 2988 at 1. Rather than acknowledging the finality of

the Court’s January 29 Order, Nokia claims that this Court’s 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 Nokia’s CBI was improperly distributed, how it was distributed, and where it remains in Samsung’s possession.” (emphasis added). Id. at 3

Not satisfied with this Court’s in camera review of Samsung’s 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 Nokia’s motion to compel in due course.
Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK -4SAMSUNG’S AMENDED MOTION TO COMPEL Case APPLE No. TO PROVIDE INFORMATION REGARDING ITS PUBLIC DISCLOSURES OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION

Id.

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

Despite seeking additional discovery from Samsung, Nokia has not sought discovery from Apple, or sought sanctions, for Apple’s public dissemination of the same license information in October 2013. Nokia and Apple’s Unreasonable Delay in Complying with the Court’s Unsealing Order. On February 28, Samsung informed Apple and Nokia that it intended to comply with the As a

Court’s 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 Court’s 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 Court’s 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 Court’s 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 Apple’s 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 Apple’s attention the very next month), Apple’s alleged investigation four months later, and Apple’s correspondence with Nokia and NEC regarding the public disclosure.

Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK -5SAMSUNG’S AMENDED MOTION TO COMPEL Case APPLE No. TO PROVIDE INFORMATION REGARDING ITS PUBLIC DISCLOSURES OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION

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

I.

INFORMATION REGARDING APPLE’S 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 Samsung’s system for protecting CBI and taking prompt and adequate remedial action. Dkt. 2935. Specifically, the Court’s 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

Apple’s 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 months—including its public filing of the very same Apple-Nokia license terms that were the subject of Apple’s 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 Samsung’s

inadvertent disclosures, this information is relevant to whether Apple’s 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 Rules—1970 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 Apple’s related accusations against Samsung would be unjust and should be reduced. The Court should consider

Apple’s pending fee requests in light of Apple’s own disclosure of the very Apple-Nokia license
Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK -6SAMSUNG’S AMENDED MOTION TO COMPEL Case APPLE No. TO PROVIDE INFORMATION REGARDING ITS PUBLIC DISCLOSURES OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION

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

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 Apple’s 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 Samsung’s 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 Apple’s “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 APPLE’S 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

Apple’s 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 Apple’s system for protecting CBI. Similarly, Samsung also is entitled to know whether Apple’s 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 Emanuel’s 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 Court’s finding that a fee award is appropriate. Rather, Samsung believes that the amount of fees and costs awarded should be reduced in light of Apple’s conduct.
Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK -7SAMSUNG’S AMENDED MOTION TO COMPEL Case APPLE No. TO PROVIDE INFORMATION REGARDING ITS PUBLIC DISCLOSURES OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION

1

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

III.

INFORMATION REGARDING APPLE’S 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 Apple’s 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 Apple’s representations to Samsung Those representations should be viewed skeptically in light of Nokia’s

acknowledgment in its sealing declarations that the Apple-Nokia license information may already have been publicly disseminated, Dkt. 2985-3, ¶ 5, and Apple’s 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. Apple’s and Nokia’s scorched-earth approach to Samsung’s 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

Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK -8SAMSUNG’S AMENDED MOTION TO COMPEL Case APPLE No. TO PROVIDE INFORMATION REGARDING ITS PUBLIC DISCLOSURES OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION

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

IV.

INFORMATION REGARDING NOKIA’S RESPONSE TO APPLE’S IMPROPER DISCLOSURE OF THE APPLE/NOKIA LICENSE TERMS TO THE PUBLIC IS RELEVANT. Nokia’s response to Apple’s 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. Nokia’s

communications with Apple are also relevant to Apple and Nokia’s positions as to the confidentiality of the information involved, and the extent to which Apple’s filing was publicly disseminated beyond PACER, as Nokia’s 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. Apple’s 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 Apple’s “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 Apple’s 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
Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK -9SAMSUNG’S AMENDED MOTION TO COMPEL Case APPLE No. TO PROVIDE INFORMATION REGARDING ITS PUBLIC DISCLOSURES OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION

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

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. Nokia’s and NEC’s responses to Apple’s 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 -10SAMSUNG’S AMENDED MOTION TO COMPEL APPLE TO PROVIDE INFORMATION REGARDING ITS PUBLIC DISCLOSURES OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION

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

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 -11SAMSUNG’S 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 SAMSUNG’S 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

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

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 Samsung’s 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 Samsung’s 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 Samsung’s 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 Samsung’s Opposition to Apple’s 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 Apple’s 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 Apple’s February 18 letter to me is attached as

21 adequately respond to Samsung’s requests for additional information regarding Apple’s 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 Apple’s 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-

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

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

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 Apple’s October 10 public filing of the Apple-Nokia and Apple-NEC licenses. 4 and correct copy of Apple’s 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 Apple’s 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 Apple’s 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 Apple’s 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-

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

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

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 Court’s 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-

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

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

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-

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

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

EXHIBIT 1

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

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 Court’s 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 LexisNexis’s CourtLink service. Sincerely,

/s/ Brian M. Buroker

BMB/lrm

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

EXHIBIT 2

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

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 Apple’s 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

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
02198.51855/5773516.1

2

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

EXHIBIT 3

Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document3009-4 Filed03/05/14 Page2 of 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 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 Apple’s 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 Apple’s 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 Apple’s and Nokia’s request for attorneys’ fees and costs as well as pending motions to seal various pleadings discussing Apple’s 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.

quinn emanuel urquhart & sullivan, llp
NEW YORK | SAN FRANCISCO | SILICON VALLEY | CHICAGO | WASHINGTON, DC | LONDON | TOKYO | MANNHEIM | MOSCOW | HAMBURG | PARIS | MUNICH | SYDNEY | HONG KONG

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

EXHIBIT 4

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

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 Apple’s 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 Apple’s motion to remove the improperly-redacted document from the docket.

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

Robert Becher February 23, 2014 Page 2

Sincerely,

/s/ Brian M. Buroker

Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document3009-6 Filed03/05/14 Page1 of 2

EXHIBIT 5

Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document3009-6 Filed03/05/14 Page2 of 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 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

quinn emanuel urquhart & sullivan, llp
NEW YORK | SAN FRANCISCO | SILICON VALLEY | CHICAGO | WASHINGTON, DC | LONDON | TOKYO | MANNHEIM | MOSCOW | HAMBURG | PARIS | MUNICH | SYDNEY | HONG KONG

Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document3009-7 Filed03/05/14 Page1 of 2

EXHIBIT 6

Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document3009-7 Filed03/05/14 Page2 of 2

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,

/s/ Brian M. Buroker

Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document3009-8 Filed03/05/14 Page1 of 2

EXHIBIT 7

Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document3009-8 Filed03/05/14 Page2 of 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 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 tomorrow’s 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

quinn emanuel urquhart & sullivan, llp
NEW YORK | SAN FRANCISCO | SILICON VALLEY | CHICAGO | WASHINGTON, DC | LONDON | TOKYO | MANNHEIM | MOSCOW | HAMBURG | PARIS | MUNICH | SYDNEY | HONG KONG

Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document3009-9 Filed03/05/14 Page1 of 3

EXHIBIT 8

Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document3009-9 Filed03/05/14 Page2 of 3

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 Dunn’s 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

Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document3009-9 Filed03/05/14 Page3 of 3
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.

2

Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document3009-10 Filed03/05/14 Page1 of 2

EXHIBIT 9

Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document3009-10 Filed03/05/14 Page2 of 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 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 Apple’s 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 Apple’s 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

quinn emanuel urquhart & sullivan, llp
NEW YORK | SAN FRANCISCO | SILICON VALLEY | CHICAGO | WASHINGTON, DC | LONDON | TOKYO | MANNHEIM | MOSCOW | HAMBURG | PARIS | MUNICH | SYDNEY | HONG KONG

Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document3009-11 Filed03/05/14 Page1 of 18

EXHIBIT 10

Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document3009-11 Filed03/05/14 Page2 of 18

Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document3009-11 Filed03/05/14 Page3 of 18
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,  You are incorrect that Apple is “not in compliance” with the Court’s order.  Nor is Apple doing anything to cause  Samsung “to be out of compliance.”     The deadline to comply with a Court order regarding sealing is not immediate.  Under the Local Rules, the submitting  party has 7 days to file an unredacted version of the document after a motion to seal is denied.  See 79‐5(f)(2).   Judge  Grewal did not indicate that the Local Rules would not apply to his order.  Accordingly, the deadline for compliance is  Wednesday, March 5.     We did not respond to your e‐mail with “delay tactics and attempts to rehash what the Court already rejected.”  We  wrote: “Apple does not object for itself.”      Apple also did not enter an appearance on behalf of NEC as you suggest.  Apple filed declarations for NEC as a courtesy.   Apple also notified NEC about the Court’s order before we received your e‐mail.      Apple reiterates that, as a matter of fairness, NEC should be given an opportunity to determine whether it wishes to  object or seek any relief.    Thank you,  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:     At the hearing yesterday, the Court orally denied all sealing motions and then ordered that the documents “shall be filed  on the public docket.”  Dkt. 2997.  The deadline for compliance with a court order is immediately, absent some other  deadline set forth in the order.  Samsung intends to comply and will not allow Apple’s and Nokia’s delay to cause  Samsung to be out of compliance.  Apple and Nokia are not in compliance with the Court’s order, and Samsung reserves  all rights.     Apple states that Samsung should not comply with the Court’s order because NEC should be given notice and an  opportunity to provide any objections.  However, Apple’s counsel entered an appearance and filed declarations on  behalf of NEC.  If NEC was not properly notified about the substance of the hearing or the Court’s order yesterday, it was  Apple’s fault for failing to inform NEC.     
2

Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document3009-11 Filed03/05/14 Page4 of 18
Samsung provided notice of its public filing to ensure that Apple and Nokia do not have other legitimate grounds for  sealing that were not rejected by the Court.  Yet in response to Samsung’s notification, neither Apple nor Nokia provide  any other legitimate grounds for sealing.  Samsung notes that its filings are related and not voluminous, and the  highlighted sealing papers are already publicly filed.  In any event, the number of filings was caused by Apple’s and  Nokia’s voluminous sealing requests.  Apple and Nokia are well aware of the content of those filings.  Their continued  delay in the face of a court order is troubling.     Samsung intends to comply with the Court’s order on and after 5 pm PT tomorrow unless Apple, NEC, or Nokia either  provide some legitimate basis for not complying with the Court’s order or seek other relief.    
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,  While Apple does not object for itself, we believe that NEC should be given notice and an opportunity to provide any  objections.  Accordingly, we believe it would be appropriate for Samsung to wait until at least Monday before  proceeding to make public filings.    Please confirm with Apple before you proceed to file publicly.    Thank you,  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:    Pursuant to the Court’s sealing order (Dkt. 2997), all filings related to Apple’s and Nokia’s fees and costs requests should  immediately be filed publicly.  Apple’s and Nokia’s sealing papers identified no grounds for sealing other than those  grounds that were specifically overruled by the Court at the February 27 hearing.  However, in an abundance of caution,  Samsung is confirming that Apple and Nokia have no further objections to public filing. 
3

Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document3009-11 Filed03/05/14 Page5 of 18
  Samsung will publicly file all of its own documents highlighted below, including all exhibits to its February 17 letter brief,  on or after 5 pm PT today unless Samsung hears particularized objections from Apple or Nokia before then.    For the remaining documents listed below that were filed by Apple or Nokia, please confirm when Apple and Nokia  intend to publicly file them in compliance with the Court’s Order.    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  Filed By:   Case No. 11‐1846 Docket  02/17/2014  Apple  2958 ‐ Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Apple's Letter Brief in Response to the Courts  February 6, 2014 Order (Docket No. 2941 ) filed by Apple Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of  Peter J. Kolovos in Support of Apple's Administrative Motion to Seal, # 2 Proposed Order  Granting Apple's Administrative Motion to File Documents Under Seal, # 3 Letter Brief in  Response to Court's February 6, 2014 Order)(Selwyn, Mark) (Filed on 2/17/2014) (Entered:  02/17/2014)  02/17/2014  Samsung  2964 ‐ Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Samsung's Letter Brief re Fees and Costs filed  by Samsung Electronics America, Inc., Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., Samsung  Telecommunications America, LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Becher Declaration re Motion to Seal, #  2 Proposed Order, # 3 Samsung's Letter Brief, # 4 Becher Declaration, # 5 Trac  Declaration)(Maroulis, Victoria) (Filed on 2/17/2014) (Entered: 02/17/2014)  02/17/2014  Samsung  2965 ‐ EXHIBITS re 2964 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Samsung's Letter Brief re  Fees and Costs Becher Declaration Exhibit 1 [2/6/14 Letter from Becher to Apple and Nokia  requesting expenses documentation] to filed by Samsung Electronics America, Inc., Samsung  Electronics Co. Ltd., Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 2  [2/11/14 Letter from Becher following up and requesting expenses documentation], # 2  Exhibit 3 [2/11/14 Expenses Letter from Apple], # 3 Exhibit 4 [2/12/14 Samsung to Apple  Letter requesting more detail], # 4 Exhibit 5 [2/13/14 Apple Expenses Letter], # 5 Exhibit 6  [Apple Invoices], # 6 Exhibit 7 [2/13/14 Samsung to Apple Expenses Letter], # 7 Exhibit 8  [2/14/14 Apple Letter attaching billing chart], # 8 Exhibit 9 [2/16/14 Apple Letter containing  individual billing rates], # 9 Exhibit 10 [2/16/14 Apple Expenses Chart], # 10 Exhibit 11  [2/11/14 Nokia Expenses Letter], # 11 Exhibit 12 [2/12/14 Nokia Revised Expenses Letter], #  12 Exhibit 13 [2/11/14 Apple two disclosure letters], # 13 Exhibit 14 [2/12/14 Samsung to  Apple Letter requesting redacted copies of Apple’s two disclosure letters], # 14 Exhibit 15  [2/12/14 Apple Letter attaching proposed redactions of two disclosure letters], # 15 Exhibit 16  [2/12/14 Samsung to Apple letter requesting public filing of disclosure letters], # 16 Exhibit 17  [2/13/14 Samsung to Apple Letter requesting additional info], # 17 Exhibit 18 [2/13/14 Apple  to Samsung Letter providing limited info], # 18 Exhibit 19 [2/14/14 Samsung to Apple Letter  demanding more info], # 19 Exhibit 20 [2/15/14 Apple to Samsung Letter re disclosures], # 20 
4

Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document3009-11 Filed03/05/14 Page6 of 18
Exhibit 21 [Apple block billing spreadsheet], # 21 Exhibit 22 [Nokia block billing spreadsheet],  # 22 Exhibit 23 [Apple post‐Oct. 10 fees spreadsheet], # 23 Exhibit 24 [Nokia post‐Oct. 10 fees  spreadsheet], # 24 Exhibit 25 [Apple total fees spreadsheet], # 25 Exhibit 26 [Nokia total fees  spreadsheet], # 26 Exhibit 27 [Apple costs spreadsheet], # 27 Exhibit 28 [Nokia costs  spreadsheet])(Related document(s) 2964 ) (Maroulis, Victoria) (Filed on 2/17/2014) (Entered:  02/17/2014)  2973 ‐ Administrative Motion to File Under Seal filed by Nokia Corporation. (Attachments: # 1  Declaration REDACTED VERSION OF Declaration of Ryan W. Koppelman In Support of Apple's  and Samsung's Administrative Motions to Seal [Dkt. Nos. 2958, 2964], # 2 Declaration  UNREDACTED VERSION OF Declaration of Ryan W. Koppelman In Support of Apple's and  Samsung's Administrative Motions to Seal [Dkt. Nos. 2958, 2964], # 3 Proposed Order, # 4  Certificate/Proof of Service)(Koppelman, Ryan) (Filed on 2/21/2014) (Entered: 02/21/2014) 2974 ‐ Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Notice of Apple's Filing of Revised Highlighted  Version and of Public Redacted Version of Apples February 17, 2014 Letter Brief in Response to  the Courts February 6, 2014 Order (see Dkt. 2958 ) filed by Apple Inc.. (Attachments: # 1  Conformed Highlighted Version of Apples February 17, 2014 Letter Brief in Response to the  Courts February 6, 2014 Order, # 2 Redacted Version of Apples February 17, 2014 Letter Brief  in Response to the Courts February 6, 2014 Order)(Selwyn, Mark) (Filed on 2/21/2014)  (Entered: 02/21/2014) 2975 ‐ Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Declaration of Non‐Party filed by Apple Inc..  (Attachments: # 1 Declaration [Nishino (NEC) Dec re Apple’s Admin Mtn to File Docs Under  Seal], # 2 Declaration [Nishino (NEC) Dec re Samsung’s Admin Mtn to File Docs Under Seal], #  3 Proposed Order)(Selwyn, Mark) (Filed on 2/21/2014) (Entered: 02/21/2014) 2976 ‐ Administrative Motion to File Under Seal filed by Apple Inc.. (Attachments: # 1  Unredacted Version of Declaration of Peter J. Kolovos In Support of Samsung's Administrative  Motion to File Documents Under Seal (Dkt. 2964 ), # 2 Proposed Order)(Selwyn, Mark) (Filed  on 2/21/2014) (Entered: 02/21/2014) 2977 ‐ Administrative Motion to File Under Seal filed by Samsung Electronics America, Inc.,  Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC. (Attachments: # 1  Declaration of Robert J. Becher, # 2 Proposed Order, # 3 Samsung's Opposition to  Administrative Motion to Seal (Dkt. 2958 ) the Kolovos Declaration (Dkt. 2958‐1) and Apple's  February 17, 2014 Letter Brief (Dkt. 2958‐3) and Opposition to Administrative Motion to Seal  (Dkt. 2964 ) Samsung's February 17, 2014 Letter Brief (Dkt. 2964‐3), the Becher Declaration  (Dkt. 2964‐4), and the Trac Declaration (Dkt. 2964‐5))(Maroulis, Victoria) (Filed on 2/21/2014)  Modified text on 2/24/2014 (dhmS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/21/2014)  2985 ‐ Administrative Motion to File Under Seal filed by Nokia Corporation. (Attachments: # 1  Proposed Order, # 2 Redacted Version of the Declaration of Ryan Koppelman in Support of  Samsungs Administrative Motion to File Document Under Seal [Dkt. No. 2977], # 3 Unredacted  Version of the Declaration of Ryan Koppelman in Support of Samsungs Administrative Motion  to File Document Under Seal [Dkt. No. 2977])(Koppelman, Ryan) (Filed on 2/25/2014)  (Entered: 02/25/2014) 2991 ‐ Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Declaration of Peter J. Kolovos in Support of  Samsung's and Apple's Administrative Motions to File Documents Under Seal 2977 filed by  Apple Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Unredacted Version of Declaration of Peter J. Kolovos in Support  of Apple's and Samsung's Administrative Motions to File Document Under Seal, # 2 Proposed  Order)(Selwyn, Mark) (Filed on 2/25/2014) (Entered: 02/25/2014)  2993 ‐ Administrative Motion to File Under Seal filed by Samsung Electronics America, Inc.,  Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC. (Attachments: # 1  Declaration of Robert J. Becher in Support of Motion to Seal, # 2 Proposed Order Denying  Administrative Motion to File under Seal, # 3 Unredacted Version of Samsung's Opposition to  Administrative Motion to Seal Dkt. 2977‐3)(Fazio, Michael) (Filed on 2/25/2014) (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 

Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document3009-11 Filed03/05/14 Page7 of 18
02/27/2014  Samsung  2996 ‐ Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Samsung's Motion to Compel Apple to Provide  Information Regarding its Public Disclosures of Confidential Information filed by Samsung  Electronics America, Inc., Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., Samsung Telecommunications  America, LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Becher Declaration re Sealing, # 2 Proposed Order DENYING  Motion to Seal, # 3 Samsung's Motion to Compel, # 4 Becher Declaration re Motion to  Compel, # 5 Exhibit 1 [2/18/14 Apple to Samsung Letter re disclosures], # 6 Exhibit 2 [2/19/14  Samsung to Apple Letter re disclosures], # 7 Exhibit 3 [2/22/14 Samsung to Apple Letter  demanding meet and confer], # 8 Exhibit 4 [2/23/14 Apple to Samsung Letter refusal to  provide info re disclosures], # 9 Exhibit 5 [2/24/14 Samsung to Apple again demanding meet  and confer], # 10 Exhibit 6 [2/25/14 Apple to Samsung Letter delaying meet and confer],  # 11 Exhibit 7 [2/25/14 Samsung to Apple Letter requesting info re disclosures], # 12 Exhibit 8  [2/25/14 Samsung to Apple re permission to share Apple’s 2/23 letter with ITC], # 13 Exhibit 9  [2/26/14 Samsung to Nokia Letter re Apple’s disclosures], # 14 Proposed Order Granting  Motion to Compel)(Maroulis, Victoria) (Filed on 2/27/2014) (Entered: 02/27/2014)

    Date  Filed By:   02/11/2014  Apple 

02/18/2014  Nokia 

02/18/2014  Apple 

02/18/2014  Samsung 

02/18/2014  Apple 

02/19/2014  Apple 

Case No. 12‐630 Docket  1258 ‐ Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Letters to the Court filed by Apple Inc.(a  California corporation). (Attachments: # 1 Declaration [Unredacted Version of Document  Sought to be Sealed] Declaration of Peter J. Kolovos in Support of Apple's Administrative  Motion to File Documents Under Seal, # 2 [Unredacted Version of Document Sought to Be  Sealed] Letter from Josh Krevitt to Judge Grewal, # 3 [Unredacted Version of Document Sought  to Be Sealed] Letter from William F. Lee to Judge Grewal, # 4 Proposed Order)(Selwyn, Mark)  (Filed on 2/11/2014) (Entered: 02/11/2014)  1276 ‐ Administrative Motion to File Under Seal filed by Nokia Corporation. (Attachments: # 1  Declaration REDACTED VERSION OF DECLARATION OF RYAN W. KOPPELMAN IN SUPPORT OF  APPLES ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO SEAL, # 2 Declaration UNDER SEAL VERSION OF  DECLARATION OF RYAN W. KOPPELMAN IN SUPPORT OF APPLES ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO  SEAL, # 3 Proposed Order, # 4 Certificate/Proof of Service)(Koppelman, Ryan) (Filed on  2/18/2014) (Entered: 02/18/2014)  1278 ‐ Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Motion to Remove Incorrectly Filed Document  filed by Apple Inc.(a California corporation). (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Granting  Motion to Seal, # 2 Declaration of Jennifer Rho in support of Motion to Seal, # 3 Motion to  Remove, # 4 Declaration of Jennifer Rho in support of Motion to Remove, # 5 Proposed Order  Granting Motion to Remove)(Lyon, Hervey) (Filed on 2/18/2014) (Entered: 02/18/2014) 1280 ‐ Administrative Motion to File Under Seal filed by Samsung Electronics America, Inc.(a  New York corporation), Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.(a Korean corporation), Samsung  Telecommunications America, LLC(a Delaware limited liability company). (Attachments: # 1  Declaration of Robert Becher in Support of Motion to Seal, # 2 Proposed Order Granting  Administrative Motion to File Under Seal, # 3 Unredacted Version of Samsung's Opposition to  Apple's Motion to Seal [Docket Entries 1258‐2 and 1258‐3], # 4 Declaration Unredacted  Version of Becher Decl. In Support Of Samsung's Opposition to Apple's Motion to Seal [Docket  Entries 1258‐2 and 1258‐3], # 5 Exhibit Unredacted Version of Exhibit 1 to Becher  Decl.)(Maroulis, Victoria) (Filed on 2/18/2014) (Entered: 02/18/2014)  1282 ‐ Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Declaration of Non‐Party filed by Apple Inc.(a  California corporation). (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Declaration of Non‐Party  [Ayumi Nishino Regarding Apple’s Motion to Seal Dkts. 1258 and 1278])(Lyon, Hervey) (Filed  on 2/18/2014) (Entered: 02/18/2014)  1289 ‐ Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Letter from Josh Krevitt to the Court filed by  Apple Inc.(a California corporation). (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Declaration of  Jennifer Rho [ISO Apple’s motion to seal Docket 1289], # 3 Letter from Josh Krevitt)(Lyon,  Hervey) (Filed on 2/19/2014) (Entered: 02/19/2014) 
6

Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document3009-11 Filed03/05/14 Page8 of 18
02/24/2014  Nokia  1315 ‐ Administrative Motion to File Under Seal filed by Nokia Corporation. (Attachments: # 1  Proposed Order, # 2 Declaration Redacted Version of Declaration of Ryan Koppelman, # 3  Declaration Unredacted Version of Declaration of Ryan Koppelman)(Koppelman, Ryan) (Filed  on 2/24/2014) (Entered: 02/24/2014)  1320 ‐ Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Amended Declaration of Non‐Party Ms. Ayumi  Nishino ( D.I. 1282 ) filed by Apple Inc.(a California corporation). (Attachments: # 1 Proposed  Order, # 2 Amended Declaration of Non‐Party)(Lyon, Hervey) (Filed on 2/24/2014) Modified  text on 2/25/2014 (dhmS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/24/2014)  1322 ‐ Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Declaration of Non‐Party filed by Apple Inc.(a  California corporation). (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Declaration of Non‐Party  [Amended Declaration of Ayumi Nishino Regarding Apple’s Motion to Seal Dockets 1258 and  1278])(Lyon, Hervey) (Filed on 2/24/2014) (Entered: 02/24/2014)  1323 ‐ Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Declaration of Peter J. Kolovos in Support of  Samsung's and Apple's Administrative Motions to File Documents Under Seal 1280 filed by  Apple Inc.(a California corporation). (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Peter J. Kolovos in  Support of Samsung's and Apple's Administrative Motions to File Documents Under Seal, # 2  Proposed Order Granting Apple's Administrative Motion to File Documents Under  Seal)(Selwyn, Mark) (Filed on 2/24/2014) (Entered: 02/24/2014) 

02/24/2014  Apple 

02/24/2014  Apple 

02/24/2014  Apple 

 

7

Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document3009-11 Filed03/05/14 Page9 of 18

Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document3009-11 Filed03/05/14 Page10 of 18
Received: Friday, 28 Feb 2014, 5:58PM  To: Herriot, Liv [Liv.Herriot@wilmerhale.com]; Samsung Damages TrialTeam  [SamsungDamagesTrialTeam@quinnemanuel.com]; Samsung v. Apple  [Samsungv.Apple@quinnemanuel.com]  CC: 'AvSSDamagesTrial@mofo.com' [AvSSDamagesTrial@mofo.com]; WH Apple Samsung NDCal Service  [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: Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd. et al., Case No. 11‐cv‐01846‐LHK    Counsel:    At the hearing yesterday, the Court orally denied all sealing motions and then ordered that  the documents “shall be filed on the public docket.”  Dkt. 2997.  The deadline for compliance  with a court order is immediately, absent some other deadline set forth in the order.   Samsung intends to comply and will not allow Apple’s and Nokia’s delay to cause Samsung to be  out of compliance.  Apple and Nokia are not in compliance with the Court’s order, and Samsung  reserves all rights.    Apple states that Samsung should not comply with the Court’s order because NEC should be  given notice and an opportunity to provide any objections.  However, Apple’s counsel entered  an appearance and filed declarations on behalf of NEC.  If NEC was not properly notified  about the substance of the hearing or the Court’s order yesterday, it was Apple’s fault for  failing to inform NEC.    Samsung provided notice of its public filing to ensure that Apple and Nokia do not have other  legitimate grounds for sealing that were not rejected by the Court.  Yet in response to  Samsung’s notification, neither Apple nor Nokia provide any other legitimate grounds for  sealing.  Samsung notes that its filings are related and not voluminous, and the highlighted  sealing papers are already publicly filed.  In any event, the number of filings was caused by  Apple’s and Nokia’s voluminous sealing requests.  Apple and Nokia are well aware of the  content of those filings.  Their continued delay in the face of a court order is troubling.    Samsung intends to comply with the Court’s order on and after 5 pm PT tomorrow unless Apple,  NEC, or Nokia either provide some legitimate basis for not complying with the Court’s order  or seek other relief.    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<mailto:ianshelton@quinnemanuel.com>  www.quinnemanuel.com<http://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.   
2

Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document3009-11 Filed03/05/14 Page11 of 18
  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,  While Apple does not object for itself, we believe that NEC should be given notice and an  opportunity to provide any objections.  Accordingly, we believe it would be appropriate for  Samsung to wait until at least Monday before proceeding to make public filings.    Please confirm with Apple before you proceed to file publicly.    Thank you,  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:    Pursuant to the Court’s sealing order (Dkt. 2997), all filings related to Apple’s and Nokia’s  fees and costs requests should immediately be filed publicly.  Apple’s and Nokia’s sealing  papers identified no grounds for sealing other than those grounds that were specifically  overruled by the Court at the February 27 hearing.  However, in an abundance of caution,  Samsung is confirming that Apple and Nokia have no further objections to public filing.    Samsung will publicly file all of its own documents highlighted below, including all exhibits  to its February 17 letter brief, on or after 5 pm PT today unless Samsung hears  particularized objections from Apple or Nokia before then.    For the remaining documents listed below that were filed by Apple or Nokia, please confirm  when Apple and Nokia intend to publicly file them in compliance with the Court’s Order.    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<mailto:ianshelton@quinnemanuel.com>  www.quinnemanuel.com<http://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 
3

Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document3009-11 Filed03/05/14 Page12 of 18
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    Filed By:    Case No. 11‐1846 Docket    02/17/2014    Apple    2958 ‐ Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Apple's Letter Brief in Response to the  Courts February 6, 2014 Order (Docket No.  2941<https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/doc1/035111436681> ) filed by Apple Inc.. (Attachments: #  1<https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/doc1/035111469098> Declaration of Peter J. Kolovos in Support  of Apple's Administrative Motion to Seal, #  2<https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/doc1/035111469099> Proposed Order Granting Apple's  Administrative Motion to File Documents Under Seal, #  3<https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/doc1/035111469100> Letter Brief in Response to Court's  February 6, 2014 Order)(Selwyn, Mark) (Filed on 2/17/2014) (Entered: 02/17/2014)    02/17/2014    Samsung    2964 ‐ Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Samsung's Letter Brief re Fees and Costs  filed by Samsung Electronics America, Inc., Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., Samsung  Telecommunications America, LLC. (Attachments: #  1<https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/doc1/035111469123> Becher Declaration re Motion to Seal, #  2<https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/doc1/035111469124> Proposed Order, #  3<https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/doc1/035111469125> Samsung's Letter Brief, #  4<https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/doc1/035111469126> Becher Declaration, #  5<https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/doc1/035111469127> Trac Declaration)(Maroulis, Victoria)  (Filed on 2/17/2014) (Entered: 02/17/2014)    02/17/2014    Samsung    2965 ‐ EXHIBITS re 2964<https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/doc1/035011469122> Administrative  Motion to File Under Seal Samsung's Letter Brief re Fees and Costs Becher Declaration Exhibit  1 [2/6/14 Letter from Becher to Apple and Nokia requesting expenses documentation] to filed  by Samsung Electronics America, Inc., Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., Samsung  Telecommunications America, LLC. (Attachments: #  1<https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/doc1/035111469134> Exhibit 2 [2/11/14 Letter from Becher  following up and requesting expenses documentation], #  2<https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/doc1/035111469135> Exhibit 3 [2/11/14 Expenses Letter from  Apple], # 3<https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/doc1/035111469136> Exhibit 4 [2/12/14 Samsung to  Apple Letter requesting more detail], # 4<https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/doc1/035111469137>  Exhibit 5 [2/13/14 Apple Expenses Letter], #  5<https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/doc1/035111469138> Exhibit 6 [Apple Invoices], #  6<https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/doc1/035111469139> Exhibit 7 [2/13/14 Samsung to Apple  Expenses Letter], # 7<https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/doc1/035111469140> Exhibit 8 [2/14/14 
4

Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document3009-11 Filed03/05/14 Page13 of 18
Apple Letter attaching billing chart], # 8<https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/doc1/035111469141>  Exhibit 9 [2/16/14 Apple Letter containing individual billing rates], #  9<https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/doc1/035111469142> Exhibit 10 [2/16/14 Apple Expenses Chart],  # 10<https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/doc1/035111469143> Exhibit 11 [2/11/14 Nokia Expenses  Letter], # 11<https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/doc1/035111469144> Exhibit 12 [2/12/14 Nokia  Revised Expenses Letter], # 12<https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/doc1/035111469145> Exhibit 13  [2/11/14 Apple two disclosure letters], # 13<https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/doc1/035111469146>  Exhibit 14 [2/12/14 Samsung to Apple Letter requesting redacted copies of Apple’s two  disclosure letters], # 14<https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/doc1/035111469147> Exhibit 15  [2/12/14 Apple Letter attaching proposed redactions of two disclosure letters], #  15<https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/doc1/035111469148> Exhibit 16 [2/12/14 Samsung to Apple  letter requesting public filing of disclosure letters], #  16<https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/doc1/035111469149> Exhibit 17 [2/13/14 Samsung to Apple  Letter requesting additional info], # 17<https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/doc1/035111469150>  Exhibit 18 [2/13/14 Apple to Samsung Letter providing limited info], #  18<https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/doc1/035111469151> Exhibit 19 [2/14/14 Samsung to Apple  Letter demanding more info], # 19<https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/doc1/035111469152> Exhibit 20  [2/15/14 Apple to Samsung Letter re disclosures], #  20<https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/doc1/035111469153> Exhibit 21 [Apple block billing  spreadsheet], # 21<https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/doc1/035111469154> Exhibit 22 [Nokia block  billing spreadsheet], # 22<https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/doc1/035111469155> Exhibit 23 [Apple  post‐Oct. 10 fees spreadsheet], # 23<https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/doc1/035111469156> Exhibit  24 [Nokia post‐Oct. 10 fees spreadsheet], #  24<https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/doc1/035111469157> Exhibit 25 [Apple total fees  spreadsheet], # 25<https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/doc1/035111469158> Exhibit 26 [Nokia total  fees spreadsheet], # 26<https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/doc1/035111469159> Exhibit 27 [Apple  costs spreadsheet], # 27<https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/doc1/035111469160> Exhibit 28 [Nokia  costs spreadsheet])(Related document(s) 2964<https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/doc1/035011469122>  ) (Maroulis, Victoria) (Filed on 2/17/2014) (Entered: 02/17/2014)    02/21/2014    Nokia    2973 ‐ Administrative Motion to File Under Seal filed by Nokia Corporation. (Attachments: #  1<https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/doc1/035111487254> Declaration REDACTED VERSION OF  Declaration of Ryan W. Koppelman In Support of Apple's and Samsung's Administrative Motions  to Seal [Dkt. Nos. 2958, 2964], # 2<https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/doc1/035111487255>  Declaration UNREDACTED VERSION OF Declaration of Ryan W. Koppelman In Support of Apple's and  Samsung's Administrative Motions to Seal [Dkt. Nos. 2958, 2964], #  3<https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/doc1/035111487256> Proposed Order, #  4<https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/doc1/035111487257> Certificate/Proof of Service)(Koppelman,  Ryan) (Filed on 2/21/2014) (Entered: 02/21/2014)    02/21/2014    Apple    2974 ‐ Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Notice of Apple's Filing of Revised  Highlighted Version and of Public Redacted Version of Apples February 17, 2014 Letter Brief  in Response to the Courts February 6, 2014 Order (see Dkt.  2958<https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/doc1/035011469097> ) filed by Apple Inc.. (Attachments: #  1<https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/doc1/035111489738> Conformed Highlighted Version of Apples  February 17, 2014 Letter Brief in Response to the Courts February 6, 2014 Order, #  2<https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/doc1/035111489739> Redacted Version of Apples February 17,  2014 Letter Brief in Response to the Courts February 6, 2014 Order)(Selwyn, Mark) (Filed on  2/21/2014) (Entered: 02/21/2014) 
5

Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document3009-11 Filed03/05/14 Page14 of 18
  02/21/2014    Apple    2975 ‐ Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Declaration of Non‐Party filed by Apple Inc..  (Attachments: # 1<https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/doc1/035111490020> Declaration [Nishino (NEC)  Dec re Apple’s Admin Mtn to File Docs Under Seal], #  2<https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/doc1/035111490021> Declaration [Nishino (NEC) Dec re  Samsung’s Admin Mtn to File Docs Under Seal], #  3<https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/doc1/035111490022> Proposed Order)(Selwyn, Mark) (Filed on  2/21/2014) (Entered: 02/21/2014)      02/21/2014    Apple    2976 ‐ Administrative Motion to File Under Seal filed by Apple Inc.. (Attachments: #  1<https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/doc1/035111490083> Unredacted Version of Declaration of Peter  J. Kolovos In Support of Samsung's Administrative Motion to File Documents Under Seal (Dkt.  2964<https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/doc1/035011469122> ), #  2<https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/doc1/035111490084> Proposed Order)(Selwyn, Mark) (Filed on  2/21/2014) (Entered: 02/21/2014)    02/21/2014    Samsung    2977 ‐ Administrative Motion to File Under Seal filed by Samsung Electronics America, Inc.,  Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC. (Attachments: #  1<https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/doc1/035111490104> Declaration of Robert J. Becher, #  2<https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/doc1/035111490105> Proposed Order, #  3<https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/doc1/035111490106> Samsung's Opposition to Administrative  Motion to Seal (Dkt. 2958<https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/doc1/035011469097> ) the Kolovos  Declaration (Dkt. 2958‐1) and Apple's February 17, 2014 Letter Brief (Dkt. 2958‐3) and  Opposition to Administrative Motion to Seal (Dkt.  2964<https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/doc1/035011469122> ) Samsung's February 17, 2014 Letter  Brief (Dkt. 2964‐3), the Becher Declaration (Dkt. 2964‐4), and the Trac Declaration (Dkt.  2964‐5))(Maroulis, Victoria) (Filed on 2/21/2014) Modified text on 2/24/2014 (dhmS, COURT  STAFF). (Entered: 02/21/2014)    02/25/2014    Nokia    2985 ‐ Administrative Motion to File Under Seal filed by Nokia Corporation. (Attachments: #  1<https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/doc1/035111498530> Proposed Order, #  2<https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/doc1/035111498531> Redacted Version of the Declaration of  Ryan Koppelman in Support of Samsungs Administrative Motion to File Document Under Seal [Dkt.  No. 2977], # 3<https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/doc1/035111498532> Unredacted Version of the  Declaration of Ryan Koppelman in Support of Samsungs Administrative Motion to File Document  Under Seal [Dkt. No. 2977])(Koppelman, Ryan) (Filed on 2/25/2014) (Entered: 02/25/2014)    02/25/2014    Apple 
6

Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document3009-11 Filed03/05/14 Page15 of 18
  2991 ‐ Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Declaration of Peter J. Kolovos in Support of  Samsung's and Apple's Administrative Motions to File Documents Under Seal  2977<https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/doc1/035011490103> filed by Apple Inc.. (Attachments: #  1<https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/doc1/035111499740> Unredacted Version of Declaration of Peter  J. Kolovos in Support of Apple's and Samsung's Administrative Motions to File Document Under  Seal, # 2<https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/doc1/035111499741> Proposed Order)(Selwyn, Mark)  (Filed on 2/25/2014) (Entered: 02/25/2014)    02/25/2014    Samsung    2993 ‐ Administrative Motion to File Under Seal filed by Samsung Electronics America, Inc.,  Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC. (Attachments: #  1<https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/doc1/035111499953> Declaration of Robert J. Becher in Support  of Motion to Seal, # 2<https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/doc1/035111499954> Proposed Order  Denying Administrative Motion to File under Seal, #  3<https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/doc1/035111499955> Unredacted Version of Samsung's Opposition  to Administrative Motion to Seal Dkt. 2977‐3)(Fazio, Michael) (Filed on 2/25/2014) (Entered:  02/25/2014)    02/27/2014    Samsung    2996 ‐ Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Samsung's Motion to Compel Apple to Provide  Information Regarding its Public Disclosures of Confidential Information filed by Samsung  Electronics America, Inc., Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., Samsung Telecommunications America,  LLC. (Attachments: # 1<https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/doc1/035111506706> Becher Declaration re  Sealing, # 2<https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/doc1/035111506707> Proposed Order DENYING Motion  to Seal, # 3<https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/doc1/035111506708> Samsung's Motion to Compel, #  4<https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/doc1/035111506709> Becher Declaration re Motion to Compel, #  5<https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/doc1/035111506710> Exhibit 1 [2/18/14 Apple to Samsung Letter  re disclosures], # 6<https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/doc1/035111506712> Exhibit 2 [2/19/14  Samsung to Apple Letter re disclosures], # 7<https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/doc1/035111506713>  Exhibit 3 [2/22/14 Samsung to Apple Letter demanding meet and confer], #  8<https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/doc1/035111506714> Exhibit 4 [2/23/14 Apple to Samsung Letter  refusal to provide info re disclosures], # 9<https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/doc1/035111506715>  Exhibit 5 [2/24/14 Samsung to Apple again demanding meet and confer], #  10<https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/doc1/035111506716> Exhibit 6 [2/25/14 Apple to Samsung  Letter delaying meet and confer], # 11<https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/doc1/035111506717>  Exhibit 7 [2/25/14 Samsung to Apple Letter requesting info re disclosures], #  12<https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/doc1/035111506718> Exhibit 8 [2/25/14 Samsung to Apple re  permission to share Apple’s 2/23 letter with ITC], #  13<https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/doc1/035111506719> Exhibit 9 [2/26/14 Samsung to Nokia  Letter re Apple’s disclosures], # 14<https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/doc1/035111506720>  Proposed Order Granting Motion to Compel)(Maroulis, Victoria) (Filed on 2/27/2014) (Entered:  02/27/2014)        Date    Filed By:    Case No. 12‐630 Docket 
7

Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document3009-11 Filed03/05/14 Page16 of 18
  02/11/2014    Apple    1258 ‐ Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Letters to the Court filed by Apple Inc.(a  California corporation). (Attachments: # 1<https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/doc1/035111454716>  Declaration [Unredacted Version of Document Sought to be Sealed] Declaration of Peter J.  Kolovos in Support of Apple's Administrative Motion to File Documents Under Seal, #  2<https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/doc1/035111454717> [Unredacted Version of Document Sought to  Be Sealed] Letter from Josh Krevitt to Judge Grewal, #  3<https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/doc1/035111454718> [Unredacted Version of Document Sought to  Be Sealed] Letter from William F. Lee to Judge Grewal, #  4<https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/doc1/035111454719> Proposed Order)(Selwyn, Mark) (Filed on  2/11/2014) (Entered: 02/11/2014)    02/18/2014    Nokia    1276 ‐ Administrative Motion to File Under Seal filed by Nokia Corporation. (Attachments: #  1<https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/doc1/035111473330> Declaration REDACTED VERSION OF  DECLARATION OF RYAN W. KOPPELMAN IN SUPPORT OF APPLES ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO SEAL, #  2<https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/doc1/035111473331> Declaration UNDER SEAL VERSION OF  DECLARATION OF RYAN W. KOPPELMAN IN SUPPORT OF APPLES ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO SEAL, #  3<https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/doc1/035111473332> Proposed Order, #  4<https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/doc1/035111473333> Certificate/Proof of Service)(Koppelman,  Ryan) (Filed on 2/18/2014) (Entered: 02/18/2014)    02/18/2014    Apple    1278 ‐ Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Motion to Remove Incorrectly Filed Document  filed by Apple Inc.(a California corporation). (Attachments: #  1<https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/doc1/035111474014> Proposed Order Granting Motion to Seal, #  2<https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/doc1/035111474015> Declaration of Jennifer Rho in support of  Motion to Seal, # 3<https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/doc1/035111474016> Motion to Remove, #  4<https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/doc1/035111474017> Declaration of Jennifer Rho in support of  Motion to Remove, # 5<https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/doc1/035111474018> Proposed Order  Granting Motion to Remove)(Lyon, Hervey) (Filed on 2/18/2014) (Entered: 02/18/2014)    02/18/2014    Samsung    1280 ‐ Administrative Motion to File Under Seal filed by Samsung Electronics America, Inc.(a  New York corporation), Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.(a Korean corporation), Samsung  Telecommunications America, LLC(a Delaware limited liability company). (Attachments: #  1<https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/doc1/035111474297> Declaration of Robert Becher in Support of  Motion to Seal, # 2<https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/doc1/035111474298> Proposed Order Granting  Administrative Motion to File Under Seal, #  3<https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/doc1/035111474299> Unredacted Version of Samsung's Opposition  to Apple's Motion to Seal [Docket Entries 1258‐2 and 1258‐3], #  4<https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/doc1/035111474300> Declaration Unredacted Version of Becher  Decl. In Support Of Samsung's Opposition to Apple's Motion to Seal [Docket Entries 1258‐2 and 
8

Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document3009-11 Filed03/05/14 Page17 of 18
1258‐3], # 5<https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/doc1/035111474301> Exhibit Unredacted Version of  Exhibit 1 to Becher Decl.)(Maroulis, Victoria) (Filed on 2/18/2014) (Entered: 02/18/2014)    02/18/2014    Apple    1282 ‐ Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Declaration of Non‐Party filed by Apple  Inc.(a California corporation). (Attachments: #  1<https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/doc1/035111474359> Proposed Order, #  2<https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/doc1/035111474360> Declaration of Non‐Party [Ayumi Nishino  Regarding Apple’s Motion to Seal Dkts. 1258 and 1278])(Lyon, Hervey) (Filed on 2/18/2014)  (Entered: 02/18/2014)    02/19/2014    Apple    1289 ‐ Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Letter from Josh Krevitt to the Court filed  by Apple Inc.(a California corporation). (Attachments: #  1<https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/doc1/035111476441> Proposed Order, #  2<https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/doc1/035111476442> Declaration of Jennifer Rho [ISO Apple’s  motion to seal Docket 1289], # 3<https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/doc1/035111476443> Letter from  Josh Krevitt)(Lyon, Hervey) (Filed on 2/19/2014) (Entered: 02/19/2014)    02/24/2014    Nokia    1315 ‐ Administrative Motion to File Under Seal filed by Nokia Corporation. (Attachments: #  1<https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/doc1/035111493635> Proposed Order, #  2<https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/doc1/035111493636> Declaration Redacted Version of  Declaration of Ryan Koppelman, # 3<https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/doc1/035111493637>  Declaration Unredacted Version of Declaration of Ryan Koppelman)(Koppelman, Ryan) (Filed on  2/24/2014) (Entered: 02/24/2014)    02/24/2014    Apple    1320 ‐ Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Amended Declaration of Non‐Party Ms. Ayumi  Nishino ( D.I. 1282<https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/doc1/035011474358> ) filed by Apple Inc.(a  California corporation). (Attachments: # 1<https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/doc1/035111494310>  Proposed Order, # 2<https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/doc1/035111494311> Amended Declaration of  Non‐Party)(Lyon, Hervey) (Filed on 2/24/2014) Modified text on 2/25/2014 (dhmS, COURT STAFF).  (Entered: 02/24/2014)    02/24/2014    Apple    1322 ‐ Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Declaration of Non‐Party filed by Apple  Inc.(a California corporation). (Attachments: #  1<https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/doc1/035111494318> Proposed Order, #  2<https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/doc1/035111494319> Declaration of Non‐Party [Amended  Declaration of Ayumi Nishino Regarding Apple’s Motion to Seal Dockets 1258 and 1278])(Lyon,  Hervey) (Filed on 2/24/2014) (Entered: 02/24/2014) 
9

Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document3009-11 Filed03/05/14 Page18 of 18
  02/24/2014    Apple    1323 ‐ Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Declaration of Peter J. Kolovos in Support of  Samsung's and Apple's Administrative Motions to File Documents Under Seal  1280<https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/doc1/035011474296> filed by Apple Inc.(a California  corporation). (Attachments: # 1<https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/doc1/035111494397> Declaration  of Peter J. Kolovos in Support of Samsung's and Apple's Administrative Motions to File  Documents Under Seal, # 2<https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/doc1/035111494398> Proposed Order  Granting Apple's Administrative Motion to File Documents Under Seal)(Selwyn, Mark) (Filed on  2/24/2014) (Entered: 02/24/2014)          ________________________________  NOTICE: This e‐mail message and all attachments may contain legally privileged and  confidential information intended solely for the use of the addressee. If you are not the  intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you may not read, copy, distribute or  otherwise use this message or its attachments. If you have received this message in error,  please notify the sender by email and delete all copies of the message immediately. 

10

Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document3009-12 Filed03/05/14 Page1 of 3

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. SAMSUNG’S 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 SAMSUNG’S AMENDED MOTION TO COMPEL APPLE TO PROVIDE INFORMATION REGARDING ITS PUBLIC DISCLOSURES OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION

Defendants.

Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document3009-12 Filed03/05/14 Page2 of 3

1

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 Samsung’s 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. Apple’s 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 Apple’s “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 Apple’s 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
Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK-PSG -2[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING SAMSUNG’S AMENDED MOTION TO COMPEL APPLE TO PROVIDE INFORMATION REGARDING ITS PUBLIC DISCLOSURES OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION

Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document3009-12 Filed03/05/14 Page3 of 3

1 2 3 4 5

4. Nokia’s and NEC’s responses to Apple’s 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
Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK-PSG -3[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING SAMSUNG’S AMENDED MOTION TO COMPEL APPLE TO PROVIDE INFORMATION REGARDING ITS PUBLIC DISCLOSURES OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION

IT IS SO ORDERED.

HONORABLE PAUL S. GREWAL United States Magistrate Judge

You're Reading a Free Preview

Herunterladen
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->