Opinion
ORDER DENYING SAMSUNG'S MOTION TO COMPEL APPLE TO PROVIDE INFORMATION RE: DOCKET NO. 2996
PAUL S. GREWAL, Magistrate Judge.
Almost a full year after Nokia's original motion for a protective order in this case, Samsung seeks to open a new round of discovery to find out more about Apple Inc.'s apparent disclosure of its own confidential information in October of 2013. Because the information sought would not be relevant to either basis for the court's January 29, 2014 sanctions order, the court DENIES the request.
A brief recap of the underlying events is in order.
For direct citations to the record or a more fulsome recitation of the facts, see Docket Nos. 2689 and 2935.
On June 4, 2013, Nokia and Samsung met to continue their ongoing negotiations for a license deal. At that meeting, Dr. Seungho Ahn of Samsung told Paul Melin of Nokia that he knew the terms of Nokia's license agreement with Apple; he then recited the terms and indicated that his lawyers had told him what they were. As Dr. Ahn put it, "all information leaks." On July 1, 2013, Nokia filed a motion for a protective order in the 12-0630 case to prevent further dissemination of its confidential information. Nokia later withdrew that motion after entering into a stipulated agreement with Samsung, which was supposed to address the problem.
On August 1, 2013, QE finally notified Apple that there had been a breach of the protective order, resulting in the dissemination of information designated as "attorneys' eyes only" within Samsung. In response, Apple filed a motion for sanctions in this case, as well as a motion for discovery to figure out how far and wide the information had spread. Because progress had been essentially non-existent on the stipulated remedial agreement, the court granted Apple's motion for discovery. 160 days, 50 deposition hours, and 1, 000, 000+ pages of evidence later, the court granted Apple's motion for sanctions against Samsung and its counsel on two grounds: (1) for failing to institute sufficient safeguards for third-party confidential information and (2) for failing to comply with the notice and cooperation requirements set forth in Section 18(a) of the protective order entered in this case. The court ordered QE to reimburse Apple and Nokia any and all costs and fees incurred in litigating this motion and the discovery associated with it.
On February 11, 2014, Apple notified both Samsung and the court of its recent discovery that it had inadvertently included the disputed license terms in a public filing on October 10, 2013. Samsung jumped on this disclosure, using it as grounds to challenge the reasonableness of the fees requested by Apple and Nokia, and the instant motion followed. Samsung seeks a sworn declaration from Apple addressing "what Nokia and NEC have said in response to Apple's revelation, " "the investigation Apple performed before it informed the court and Samsung that it had no information that the document was distributed on the Internet, " and "the names and titles of the persons involved in the inadvertent disclosure, and what each of them did" on the filing at issue.
See Docket No. 2996-3 at 6-7.
None of this information is relevant to the sanctions order issued by this court. It is not probative of the confidentiality of the information at the time that QE and Samsung disclosed it. It would reveal nothing about QE and Samsung's compliance (or lack thereof) with Section 18(a) of the protective order. And it would in no way demonstrate that QE and Samsung's system for protecting confidential information was sufficient during the time period in question.
Samsung nevertheless offers two arguments as to why it is entitled to the discovery sought. First, it argues that the information would reveal whether Nokia has been seeking "legitimate protection" of its license terms, or whether its outrage at their dissemination may have been feigned. But nothing in the protective order requires that a party whose information is disclosed be "legitimately" outraged in order to pursue protections; in fact, there is no requirement that it be outraged at all. The order is only concerned with the fact of the disclosure and the responses by the disclosing party, not the level of indignation that the disclosure caused. Second, Samsung argues that "the confidentiality of th[e] licensing information at the time Apple and Nokia were aggressively pursuing sanctions is relevant to the propriety and amount of the fees awarded." Once again, this is simply not correct. The confidentiality of the information at the time of its disclosure is the relevant inquiry, not its status at whatever late date the parties manage to seek a remedy. None of the information sought is at all probative of the information's status between March 24, 2012 and June 4, 2013. The continued status of the information might be relevant if the court had imposed an additional fine to compensate Apple and Nokia for the continuing harm suffered by having the information potentially out in the open, but it did not. The sanctions imposed reimburse Apple and Nokia for the costs of investigating past disclosures; no more and no less.
IT IS SO ORDERED.