13-11-13 Apple Opposition to Motorola Motion for Exception

8/14/2019 13-11-13 Apple Opposition to Motorola Motion for Exception

1/17

APPLES OPPOSITION TO MOTOROLASMOTION FOR EXCEPTION FROM PROTECTIVE ORDER

CASE NO. 12-CV-00355-GPC-BLM

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

MERYL L. YOUNG (CA SBN 110156) Y. ERNEST HSIN (CA SBN 201668)[email protected] [email protected], DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP3161 Michelson Drive 1881 Page Mill RoadIrvine, CA 92612-4412 Palo Alto, CA 94304-1211Telephone: (949) 451-3800 Telephone: (650) 849-5322Fax: (949) 451-4220 Fax: (650) 849-5333

JOSH A. KREVITT (CA SBN 208552)

[email protected] (admittedpro hac vice)

GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP

200 Park Avenue

New York, NY 10166-0193

Telephone: (212) 351-4000

Fax: (212) 351-4035

Attorneys for PlaintiffsAPPLE INC. and APPLE SALES INTERNATIONAL

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

APPLE INC. and APPLE SALES

INTERNATIONAL,

Plaintiffs,

v.

MOTOROLA MOBILITY LLC,

Defendant.

CASE NO. 3:12-CV-00355-GPC-BLM

PLAINTIFFS APPLE INC.S AND

APPLE SALES INTERNATIONALS

OPPOSITION TO MOTOROLASMOTION FOR EXCEPTION FROM

PROTECTIVE ORDER

CONFIDENTIAL FILED UNDER SEAL

Case 3:12-cv-00355-GPC-BLM Document 154-2 Filed 11/13/13 Page 1 of 17


2/17

iAPPLES OPPOSITION TO MOTOROLAS

MOTION FOR EXCEPTION FROM PROTECTIVE ORDER


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

I.

Introduction............................................................................................................ 1II. Background ............................................................................................................ 2

A. Motorola Agreed to a Protective Order that Prohibits It from Using ApplesConfidential Business Information Outside this Case ................................... 2

B. Apple Produced Confidential Business Information Regarding Its SupplyChain and License Agreements .................................................................... 3

1. Document 1 Contains Highly Confidential Apple BusinessInformation ........................................................................................ 4

2. Document 2 Contains Highly Confidential Apple BusinessInformation ........................................................................................ 5

C. Motorola Conducted an Unjustified Fishing Expedition and Now Seeks toBenefit from Its Behavior ............................................................................ 5

III. ARGUMENT ......................................................................................................... 7A. Legal Standard ............................................................................................. 8B. Abiding by the Protective Order Will Not Prejudice Motorolas Case ......... 9C. Disclosure of Apples Confidential Information Would Be Highly

Prejudicial .................................................................................................... 9

D. Motorolas Motion Is Hypocritical and Contrary to Motorolas Own StatedPositions Regarding Confidential Business Information ............................ 12

IV. Conclusion ........................................................................................................... 13



3/17

iiAPPLES OPPOSITION TO MOTOROLAS

MOTION FOR EXCEPTION FROM PROTECTIVE ORDER


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Page(s)

CasesAm. Standard, Inc. v. Pfizer, Inc.,

828 F.2d 734 (Fed. Cir. 1987)....................................................................................... 9

Brown Bag Software v. Symantec Corp.,

960 F.2d 1465 (9th Cir. 1992) .............................................................................8, 9, 10

Citizens of Humanity LLC v. Costco Wholesale Corp.,

171 Cal. App. 4th 1 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009) .................................................................... 10

Golden Eagle Dist. Corp. v. Burroughs Corp.,

801 F.2d 1531 (9th Cir. 1986) .................................................................................. 7, 8

Intel Corp. v. Via Tech., Inc.,

198 F.R.D. 525 (N.D. Cal. 2000) ................................................................... 8, 9, 11, 12

Kwikset Corp. v. Sup. Ct.,

51 Cal. 4th 310 (Cal. 2011)......................................................................................... 10

U.S. Steel Corp. v. U.S.,

730 F.2d 1465 (Fed. Cir. 1984) ............................................................................8, 9, 12

Yeti by Molly Ltd. v. Deckers Outdoor Corp.,

259 F.3d 1101 (9th Cir. 2001) .................................................................................... 10

RulesFed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1) .................................................................................................... 6

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c) ........................................................................................................ 8



4/17


5/17

2APPLES OPPOSITION TO MOTOROLAS MOTION

FOR EXCEPTION FROM PROTECTIVE ORDER


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

demand that the Court remove the protections over Apples confidential dealings with

that same non-party.

For nearly two years, Motorola has expected Apple to litigate this case while

keeping its in-house counsel in the dark. Now, without any legal basis for disclosing

Apples confidential information, Motorola is asking this Court to hold it to a lower

standard than the one to which Motorola has held Apple, just so Motorola may benefit in

its dealings outside this case. The Court should reject Motorolas unfair and hypocritical

demand.

II. BACKGROUNDA.Motorola Agreed to a Protective Order that Prohibits It from Using Apples

Confidential Business Information Outside this Case

On December 5, 2012, Motorola and Apple agreed to a Joint Protective Order

signed by this Court. Dkt. No. 101 (Protective Order). The parties entered the

Protective Order in order to facilitate production and receipt of information during

discovery in the above-referenced action, and they recognized the need to protect trade

secret and other confidential research, development or commercial information that may

be produced or otherwise disclosed by a party or by non-parties during the course of this

action. Id. at Preamble. Motorola and Apple agreed that:

Protected Material1 . . . shall be used by a Receiving Party

2

solely for the purpose of this action, and any appeals therefrom,

including any efforts to settle this action, and shall not be

disclosed or used for any other purpose whatsoever, including

without limitation any other legal proceeding, including any

1

Protected Material is defined as all information, documents, testimony and/orthings, or portions thereof, subject to discovery in this action, which contain non-public,confidential information and/or trade secrets designated pursuant to the terms of thisOrder, as well as any secondary material, such as pleadings, written discovery, expertreports, notes, summaries or any other materials that contain, describe or reflect suchinformation. Protective Orderat 1.

2 Receiving Party is defined as any person who receives Protected Material

from a party . . . or non-party producing materials or information in response to asubpoena or otherwise. Id. at 1, 3.



6/17




1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

legal proceeding involving any of the parties, patent

prosecution or acquisition, or any business or competitive

purpose or function of any kind.

Id. at 12 (emphases added). Pursuant to Motorolas agreement not to use Apples

confidential business information for purposes beyond this case, Apple produced

documents spanning pages, including of highly confidential emails

from the files of its top ranking licensing and supply-chain management executives

Motorola now seeks to profit from two Apple documents that have proven to have

nothing to do with this case.

B.Apple Produced Confidential Business Information Regarding Its SupplyChain and License Agreements

This case is properly focused on the question of whether Apple, as a Qualcomm

customer, is entitled to rights under an agreement between Qualcomm and Motorola (the

Qualcomm-Motorola Agreement). See Dkt. 135 (Apples Count Two MSJ).

Accordingly, during discovery, Apple produced documents concerning its customer

relationship with Qualcomm, including

On June 7, 2013, Apple produced two emails (with attachments) from

, which Motorola has identified as Document 1 and Document 2,

respectively. Declaration of Y. Ernest Hsin (Hsin Decl.), Ex. 1

Email between Apple Executives (Document 1)) at [001-005]; id., Ex. 2

Email from Qualcomm to Apple (Document 2)) at [006-010]. Both Documents

contain Apples confidential business information, the disclosure of which would be

prejudicial to Apple.3

3 Motorola does not acknowledge, much less address, Apples interest in protecting

this confidential information. Instead, it offers Qualcomm-produced versions of theDocuments and claims, without support, that Qualcomms agreement to permit disclosureshould bind Apple. But because the information in these Documents is sensitive to

Apple, it is entirely irrelevant whether Qualcomm consents to the disclosure. OnMotorolas theory, Qualcomms consent would be sufficient to permit Apples in-housecounsel to review confidential Motorola information contained in Qualcomm-Motorolacommunications.



7/17




1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1. Document 1 Contains Highly Confidential Apple Business InformationDocument 1 is a

4

According to Motorolas own reasoning, which its counsel has repeated throughout

this case, the text of a business agreement in this industry is highly sensitive, confidential

information.5 Moreover, Apple considers the terms upon which Apple will agree to

purchase mobile device components commercially sensitive, proprietary business

information. Hsin Decl., Ex. 3 (October 14, 2013 Deposition of Boris Teksler (Teksler

Depo.)) at 143:15-145:20 [014]; id., Ex. 4 (August 23, 2013 Deposition of David Tom

(Tom Depo.)) at 41:9-25, 72:2-73:5 [019, 021]. The need for confidentiality in this

case is further heightened by the fact that Motorola is one of Apples direct competitors

in the mobile device industry and itself a potential customer of Qualcomm components.

The date of the email and the identities of the Apple recipients are also highly

sensitive, confidential information. To maintain its competitive position in the mobile

telecommunications industry, and to deter outsiders from ascertaining where Apple is in

the product development cycle, Apple closely guards information about when and how it

engages with components suppliers such as Qualcomm. And the specific identities of the

Apple executives involved indicate not only the relative importance of the Qualcomm

4

Motorola has redacted the versions of Document 1 and Document 2 that it seeks todisclose, but these redactions are insufficient to cover Apples confidential businessinformation. Except as noted, the descriptions in this memorandum relate to the redactedversions of Documents 1 and 2.

5 In fact, Motorola has consistently refused to allow Apples outside counsel to

make even a limited disclosure of the Qualcomm-Motorola Agreement terms in disputein this case to the one Apple in-house attorney in

to disclose Document 1, containing, tofourGoogle and Motorola in-ho



8/17




1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

relationship to Apple, but also the stage of negotiations and status of the parties

relationship as of

2. Document 2 Contains Highly Confidential Apple Business InformationDocument 2 is

As stated above, the who and when of Apples supply negotiations compose

highly sensitive, confidential business information subject to protection as trade secrets.

Document 2

6

C.Motorola Conducted an Unjustified Fishing Expedition and Now Seeks toBenefit from Its Behavior

After Apple produced Documents 1 and 2, Motorola apparently sensed that the

Documents might create leverage against Qualcomm, which had provided corporate

6

Depo.)) at 184:23-185:10[026]; id., Ex. 6 (September 20, 2013 Deposition of Michael Hartogs (Hartogs Depo.))at 27:20-24 [031]; id., Ex. 7 (September 25, 2013 Deposition of Eric Koliander(Koliander Depo.)) at 96:23-97:16 [035].

ve Order (Motorola Memo.) at 12. This non sequitur is a holdover fromMotorolas defunct equitable estoppel defense, discussed below, and yet another degreeremoved from the contractual



9/17




1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

testimony Motorola thus set

out to use the remaining period for discovery in this case to develop more information

about the alleged disclosure of Qualcomm-Motorola Agreement terms allegedly

evidenced by Documents 1 and 2. Motorola had already asked Apple executives Tim

Butzow and David Tom during their depositions about

but Motorola then went further, serving additional deposition subpoenas on

Qualcomm employees Eric Koliander and Michael Hartogs, demanding additional

document discovery from Qualcomm, and even moving this Court to compel additional

Qualcomm corporate testimony regarding possible disclosures of terms.

Prior to the close of discovery in October 2013, Apple countenanced Motorolas

fishing expedition because it believed that Motorola was acting in good faith to develop

evidence that would be admissible in this case. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Motorola

had contended that Apple was equitably estopped from claiming rights under the

Qualcomm-Motorola Agreement, based on Apples allegedly improper receipt of certain

terms of the Agreement. But by the close of fact discovery, Motorola had failed to

adduce evidence to establish the necessary elements of equitable estoppel, prompting

Apple to move for summary judgment against that defense. Dkt. 138, 150.7 Thus, by the

close of discovery, the apparent justification for Motorolas fishing expedition had

evaporated, and Motorola was left with nothing to show for its efforts.

Now, because its equitable estoppel theory is no longer viable, Motorola moves

this Court for permission to salvage something from its discovery efforts that will benefit

Motorola elsewhere. Motorola claims that it must disclose Documents 1 and 2 to four

7

The alleged fact of disclosure is irrelevant to this case because, among otherthings, Motorola cannot show that Apple was under any duty to tell Motorola that it wasaware of certain terms of the Qualcomm-Motorola Agreement. As discussed in detail inApples Count Two MSJ and Apples Motion for Summa

fenses (Dkt. 138), Motorola admits that, and Motorola has failed to identify ahat would apply. Nonetheless, in an effort to add an air of legitimacy to

its instant motion, Motorola boasts that Motorola is already permitted to use[Documents 1 and 2] on an outside attorneys eyes only basis for purposes of this case . .. . Motorola Memo. at 13.



10/17




1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Google and Motorola in-house attorneys involved not only in litigation, but also in

Motorolas patent licensing business:

Motorola seeks to disclose Documents 1 and 2:

in order to allow Motorola to properly address any breach;

in order for Motorola and its personnel to address issues ofwhether Qualcomm complied with contractual obligations;

for purposes of addressing Qualcomms breach with Qualcommas needed; and

for purposes of correspondence with Qualcomm and, ifnecessary, through Court action against Qualcomm.

Dkt. 153, Memorandum in Support of Motorola Motion for Exception from Protective

Order (Motorola Memo.) at 2, 12-13.

III. ARGUMENTThe parties agreed-upon Protective Order states that Protected Materials in this

case shall be used only in this matter. Protective Order at 1. Motorola conspicuously

avoids providing any legal basis for modifying the Protective Order here.8 Motorola does

not explain the applicable legal standards because it has no colorable argument under

them: Motorola must show (1) that its case defense in this litigation would be prejudiced

without the requested modification to the Protective Order, and (2) that such prejudice

would outweigh the harm to Apple that would be caused by the disclosure of its

8 See Golden Eagle Dist. Corp. v. Burroughs Corp., 801 F.2d 1531, 1539 (9th Cir.

1986) (A court has a right to expect that counsel will state the controlling law fairly andfully; indeed, unless that is done the court cannot perform its task properly. A lawyermust not misstate the law, fail to disclose adverse authority (not disclosed by hisopponent), or omit facts critical to the application of the rule of law relied on.).



11/17




1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

confidential information. Motorola has not shown (or even argued) that it meets either of

these requirements. Therefore, Motorolas motion should be denied.9

A.Legal StandardUnder the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court may issue a Protective

Order to ensure that a trade secret or other confidential research, development, or

commercial information not be revealed or be revealed only in a specified way. Fed. R

Civ. P. 26(c)(1)(G). In order to modify the parties Protective Order to allow disclosure

of confidential information, Motorola must establish good cause. See Brown Bag

Software v. Symantec Corp., 960 F.2d 1465, 1471-72 (9th Cir. 1992).

First, Motorola must show how abiding by the current protective order will

prejudice its defense here. See id.; see also Intel Corp. v. Via Tech., Inc., 198 F.R.D.

525, 528 (N.D. Cal. 2000) (The protective order must actually prejudice presentation of

the moving partys case, not merely increase the difficulty of managing the litigation.).

Second, Motorola must show that such prejudice outweighs the risk of injury to

Apple. See Brown Bag Software, 960 F.2d at 1471-72;see also Intel Corp. v. Via Tech.,

Inc., 198 F.R.D. 525, 528 (N.D. Cal. 2000). The risk of injury is especially great where,

as here, the parties to whom the information would be disclosed are employees involved

in competitive decisionmaking at a direct competitor of the party whose information is

being disclosed. See U.S. Steel Corp. v. United States, 730 F.2d 1465, 1468 (Fed. Cir.

1984); Am. Standard, Inc. v. Pfizer, Inc., 828 F.2d 734, 741 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (Courts

have presumed that disclosure to a competitor is more harmful than disclosure to a

noncompetitor.). Such disclosure would give the disclosing party an unfair competitive

advantage over its competitor.

Courts have found good cause when, for example, the specialized technical

knowledge of in-house counsel was essential to the proper handling of litigation, and

9 SeeGolden Eagle at 1542 (A lawyer should not be able to proceed with impunity

in real or feigned ignorance of authorities which render his argument meritless.).



12/17




1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

such counsel was not involved in a companys competitive decisionmaking. See Intel

Corp., 198 F.R.D. at 528; see also U.S. Steel, 730 F.2d at 1468 (finding good cause

where the party seeking disclosure had no outside counsel, the litigation was extremely

complex and at an advanced stage, and both parties agreed that in-house counsel was

not involved in competitive decisionmaking).

B.Abiding by the Protective Order Will Not Prejudice Motorolas CaseTo show good cause for an exception from the Protective Order, Motorola must

demonstrate that its case presentation would be actually prejudiced without such

exception. See Brown Bag, 960 F.2d at 1472. Motorola cannot do so. Motorola has not

argued that its in-house counsel possess any specialized knowledge that makes them

indispensable to this litigation. See Intel Corp., 198 F.R.D. at 528. In fact, Motorola

has not advanced any explanation for how its defense in this case would be prejudiced

unless its four in-house licensing and litigation counsel review Documents 1 and 2. To

the contrary, Motorola actually admitsthat it is not seeking an exception to the Protective

Order for the proper purpose of advancing its defense in this case, but rather that it is

seeking to use [Documents 1 and 2] for purposes of correspondence with Qualcomm

and, if necessary, through Court action against Qualcomm. Motorola Memo. at 13

This is precisely the type of business or competitive purpose or function explicitly

contemplated, andprohibited, by the Protective Order. Protective Order at 12.

C.Disclosure of Apples Confidential Information Would Be Highly PrejudicialEven if Motorola could show that its case would be prejudicedsomething it has

not even tried to doit would also have to show that the prejudice outweighs the harm of

disclosing Apples confidential business information. See Brown Bag Software, 960 F.2d

at 1472. Again, Motorola does not even attempt to make the required showing.

Disclosure of Documents 1 and 2 would prejudice Apple by providing one of its

direct competitors as well as trade

secrets concerning Apples supply chain. The Documents reveal



13/17




1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

as well as information about

and

In fact, the Documents contain

information that Motorola itself considers critically sensitive and unfit for disclosure to

opposing in-house counsel.

California law protects the identities of Apples suppliers and Apples negotiations

with those suppliers regarding as trade secrets. See Citizens of Humanity

LLC v. Costco Wholesale Corp., 171 Cal. App. 4th 1, 13 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009), overruled

on other grounds by Kwikset Corp. v. Sup. Ct., 51 Cal. 4th 310, 337 (Cal. 2011);see also

Yeti by Molly Ltd. v. Deckers Outdoor Corp., 259 F.3d 1101, 1108 (9th Cir. 2001) (The

identity of a supplier can be a trade secret.). Moreover, the circumstances of Apples

and Qualcomms negotiations are sensitive information that a competitor such as

Motorola would find advantageous to have. Cf. Intel, 198 F.R.D. at 530 ([Intel in-house

counsels] knowledge of technical aspects of VIAs products, VIAs licensing

agreements, and marketing information, would be directly relevant to her evaluation of

licensing agreements of related products of Intel. Confidential information in this case

may provide Intel a competitive advantage in negotiating related licenses in the future.).

Motorolas outside counsel knows from discovery in this case that Apple considers

the information reflected in Documents 1 and 2 to be confidential, but Motorola

nonetheless failed to raise that point with the Courtinstead suggesting that Apples

justification for opposing Motorolas motion is flimsy. Motorola Memo. at 1. In fact,

Apple witnesses consistently testified that Apples history with Qualcomm, as well as the

specific negotiations between the two parties, is information that is valuable to Apple and

that Apple desires to keep secret. See Teksler Depo. at 143:15-145:20 [014]; Tom Depo.

at 41:9-25; 72:2-73:5 [019, 021].10

10 Apple has always emphasized to Motorola that such information was highly

confidential. For example,



14/17




1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Motorola, for its part, feels the same way about its own confidential business

agreements. In its applications to file motion papers under seal in this case, filed just last

month, Motorola routinely redacted even general discussion of the contents of

confidential agreements and information that reveals the scope of those agreements.

Dkt. 147 at 3. Motorola maintains, as it has throughout this litigation, that its

agreements are confidential and considered trade secrets and commercially sensitive

proprietary business information, the public of which could be damaging to

those [contracting] entities. Id. at 3-4.

Furthermore, Motorola does not even suggest that the four in-house counsel to

whom it proposes to disclose Documents 1 and 2 are not involved in competitive

decision-making. See U.S. Steel, 730 F.2d at 1468. Motorolas legal department is not

just a litigation support center; to the contrary, proposed recipients

serve the in a strategic

capacity. SeeHsin Decl., Ex. 9 (September 6, 2013 Deposition of Kirk Dailey (Dailey

Depo.)) at 25:7-9 (emphasis added) [043]; id., Ex. 10 (September 5, 2013 Deposition of

Timothy Kowalski (Kowalski Depo.) at 16:12-24:16 [048-050].11

Motorolas arguments suggest that it does not intend to bring a particular in-house

attorneys expertise to bear on Documents 1 and 2; rather, it seeks permission to disclose

the Documents to a team of four attorneys, so they can exercise their discretion in

advancing Motorolas various business interests related to Qualcomm. Motorola requests

disclosure for purposes of correspondence with Qualcomm and, if necessary, through

Court action against Qualcomm, and for purposes of addressing Qualcomms breach

with Qualcomm as needed. Motorola Memo. at 13 (emphases added).12

11 Moreover,

12 If Motorola merely needs advice on the viability of a legal claim against

Qualcomm, it can consult with its attorneys at Winston & Strawn LLP. See Intel Corp.,



15/17




1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

D.Motorolas Motion Is Hypocritical and Contrary to Motorolas Own StatedPositions Regarding Confidential Business Information

This litigation concerns intellectual property rights Qualcomm secured from

Motorola. Unlike the material at issue in this motion, the subject matter of this litigation

is naturally public facing, in that the contract terms in dispute here were

Apple has, therefore,

consistently sought for its in-house counsel access to the contract language at issue in this

litigation. Motorola has repeatedly refused, hindering Apples ability to litigate the case

and to evaluate the strength of its claims

Motorolas interest in keeping those terms secret appears driven more by

an interest in extracting double recovery from Apple than it does by any genuine concern

over the protection of confidential business information. Even now,

Motorola

refuses to allow the one Apple in-house counsel in charge of the litigation to view

3

Not only does Motorola refuse Apple permission to discuss the terms of the

Agreement at issue here with the in-house counsel managing the case, but Motorola also

claims to consider a secret that cannot be

disclosed. Last month, Motorola filed a summary judgment motion contending that

Apples in-house counsel in charge of this litigation has not been

permitted to review the substance of that motion, and Motorola has gone so far as to

request that Apples outside counsel refrain from even suggesting

198 F.R.D. at 529. Of course, Motorolas motion belies the notion that the Documentswill be considered only in the context of litigation.

13



16/17




1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Indeed, Motorolas outside counsel has requested that Apple limit

discussion of Motorolas motion to a statement that

Hsin Decl., Ex. 11 (Chassman Oct. 25 Email to Hsin) at

[052].

Thus, Motorola has moved the Court for an opportunity to fully assess the facts,

determine its options, and take them if necessary, while insisting that Apples in-house

counsel continue to litigate thiscase in the dark. Motorola Memo. at 1.14

IV. CONCLUSIONFor the aforementioned reasons, this Court should deny Motorolas motion for

exception from the parties Protective Order. However, if the Court is inclined to grant

Motorolas motion in whole or in part, then to the extent that the Court permits disclosure

of Documents 1 and 2, Apple respectfully requests leave to submit proposed redactions

designed to protect Apples confidential business information.

Dated: November 13, 2013 Respectfully submitted,


By: /s Y. Ernest Hsin

MERYL L. YOUNG (CA SBN 110156)

[email protected]

3161 Michelson Drive

Irvine, CA 92612-4412

Telephone: (949) 451-3800

Facsimile: (949) 451-4220

JOSH A. KREVITT (CA SBN 208552)

14 Finally, Motorola is being disingenuous when it states that [t]ime is short for

Motorola to act on information that Qualcomm should have provided five months ago.Id. Apple produced versions of Documents 1 and 2 in June of 2013, and Motorolaconducted extensive discovery on them through the beginning of October. Motorolaelected to offer the Court versions of the Documents later produced by Qualcomm in anapparent attempt to suggest that it is acting swiftly and to encourage the Court to do thesame. The Court should reject this meritless motion.



17/17

14APPLES OPPOSITION TO MOTOROLAS MOTION CASE NO 12 CV 00355 GPC BLM

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

[email protected]

(admitted pro hac vice)

200 Park Avenue

New York, NY 10166-0193

Telephone: (212) 351-2490

Facsimile: (212) 351-6390

Y. ERNEST HSIN (CA SBN 201668)

[email protected]


1881 Page Mill Road

Palo Alto, CA 94304-1211

Telephone: (650) 849-5322

Fax: (650) 849-5333

Attorneys for Apple Inc. and Apple SalesInternational

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on November 13, 2013, I caused this motion document and the

declaration and exhibits in support to be electronically filed with the Clerk of the Court

using the ECF System of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California,

which will send notification of such filings to all known counsel of record.

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America

and the State of California that the above is true and correct.

Executed on November 13, 2013, at Palo Alto, California.

By: s/ Y. Ernest HsinY. Ernest Hsin


13-11-13 Apple Opposition to Motorola Motion for Exception

Documents

Transcript of 13-11-13 Apple Opposition to Motorola Motion for Exception