`
`
`
`MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
`Richard S. Taffet (pro hac vice)
`richard.taffet@morganlewis.com
`101 Park Avenue
`New York, NY 10178-0060
`Telephone: (212) 309-6000
`Facsimile: (212) 309-6001
`
`MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
`Geoffrey T. Holtz - # 191370
`gholtz@morganlewis.com
`One Market, Spear Street Tower
`San Francisco, CA 94105-1596
`Telephone: (415) 442-1000
`Facsimile: (415) 442-1001
`
`KEKER, VAN NEST & PETERS LLP
`ROBERT A. VAN NEST - # 84065
`rvannest@keker.com
`EUGENE M. PAIGE - # 202849
`epaige@keker.com
`STEVEN A. HIRSCH - # 171825
`shirsch@keker.com
`CODY S. HARRIS - # 255302
`charris@keker.com
`MATAN SHACHAM - # 262348
`mshacham@keker.com
`KRISTIN HUCEK - # 321853
`khucek@keker.com
`DANIEL TWOMEY - # 341488
`dtwomey@keker.com
`633 Battery Street
`San Francisco, CA 94111-1809
`Telephone:
`415 391 5400
`Facsimile:
`415 397 7188
`
`CRAVATH, SWAINE & MOORE LLP
`Gary A. Bornstein (pro hac vice)
`gbornstein@cravath.com
`Yonatan Even (pro hac vice) yeven@cravath.com
`825 Eighth Avenue
`New York, New York 10019-7475
`Telephone: (212) 474-1000
`Facsimile: (212) 474-3700
`
`Attorneys for Defendant
`QUALCOMM INCORPORATED
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
`
`IN RE: QUALCOMM ANTITRUST
`LITIGATION,
`
`This Document Relates To:
`ALL ACTIONS
`
`Case 3:17-md-02773-JSC
`
`ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE
`UNDER SEAL
`
`
`Judge: Hon. Jacqueline Scott Corley
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL
`
`Case No. 3:17-md-02773-JSC
`
`
`
`Case 3:17-md-02773-JSC Document 937 Filed 04/07/23 Page 2 of 4
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`Qualcomm respectfully submits this further application to seal two lines from the Motion
`for Summary Judgment as well as narrowed and targeted portions of two reports submitted by
`Plaintiffs’ expert Einer Elhauge and filed with Qualcomm’s Motion for Summary Judgment,
`consistent and co-existent with its pending application to seal the same materials (Dkt. 929),
`which is currently before the Court and incorporated herein.
`Qualcomm does not seek to seal anything additional to or different from its pending
`application to seal but files this further application solely to avoid any question of waiver. Third-
`parties previously filed requests to seal portions of these same expert reports (Dkts. 903 and 904)
`and third-party Apple, Inc. has indicated that it also may seek to seal certain portions of the
`reports (Dkt. 934). Qualcomm’s Motion for Summary Judgment also references one or more
`portions of these reports that are the subject of the pending requests to seal.
`Upon the Court’s resolution of the pending requests to seal, Qualcomm will publicly file
`redacted versions of the two Elhauge reports and its Motion for Summary Judgment consistent
`with any Orders that the Court issues.
`
`
`II. QUALCOMM SEEKS TO SEAL ONLY THE SAME PORTIONS OF THE REPORTS
`THAT ARE THE SUBJECT OF ITS PENDING REQUEST TO SEAL
`
`With their opposition to Qualcomm’s Motion to Dismiss, Plaintiffs submitted under seal
`the Expert Report of Einer R. Elhauge and the Reply Expert Report of Einer R. Elhauge
`(“Elhauge Reports”) (Dkts. 900-1, 900-2). Qualcomm and certain third-parties requested that
`certain portions of the Elhauge Reports be sealed (Dkts. 903, 904, 905). The Court issued an
`Order (Dkt. 922) on Qualcomm’s initial request. Qualcomm submitted a more targeted request to
`seal limited portions of the Elhauge Reports (Dkt. 929), and the Court issued a requested order
`extending the deadline to file public versions of the reports while it considered the renewed
`request (Dkt. 930). Cf. Ovonic Battery Co. v. Sanyo Electric Co., No. 14-cv-01637-JD, 2014 WL
`2758756, at *2 (N.D. Cal. June 17, 2014) (permitting party to file “renewed” sealing application);
`Ovonic Battery Co. v. Sanyo Electric Co., No. 14-cv-01637-JD, 2014 WL 3749152, at *2-3 (N.D.
`Cal. July 24, 2014) (granting party’s “renewed” sealing application). Qualcomm’s renewed
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL
`
`
`
`Case No. 3:17-md-02773-JSC
`
`
`
`Case 3:17-md-02773-JSC Document 937 Filed 04/07/23 Page 3 of 4
`
`
`
`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
`
`request to seal and its Proposed Order (Dkt. 929-5) remain pending as of this date. Apple also
`indicated that it may seek to seal certain portions of the same reports. (Dkt. 934).
`Qualcomm submits the same Elhauge Reports, attached under seal as Exhibits 1 and 2 to
`the Declaration of Cody S. Harris, with its Motion for Summary Judgment. With Qualcomm’s
`pending request to seal limited portions of the Elhauge Reports (Dkt. 929), it submitted a
`supporting declaration (Dkt. 929-1). In that pending request, Qualcomm provided compelling
`reasons why the targeted portions of the Elhauge Reports should be sealed. See Kamakana v.
`City & Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1179 (9th Cir. 2006) (sealing trade secrets); FTC v.
`Qualcomm Inc., No. 17-CV-00220-LHK, 2019 WL 95922, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 3, 2019) (sealing
`“confidential contracts” and “contract negotiations”); Krieger v. Atheros Commc’ns, Inc., No. 11-
`CV-00640-LHK, 2011 WL 2550831, at *1 (N.D. Cal. June 25, 2011) (sealing financial
`projections and “discussions of business strategy”); Ctr. For Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC,
`809 F.3d 1092, 1097 (9th Cir. 2016) (sealing “business information that might harm a litigant’s
`competitive standing”).
`Because a request to seal portions of the same documents is currently pending before the
`Court, Qualcomm does not burden the Court with a duplicative request but incorporates by
`reference its pending request and supporting declaration (Dkts. 929 and 929-1). When the Court
`issues an Order on the pending request and the requests from any third-parties, Qualcomm will
`file public, redacted versions of the Elhauge Reports and of Qualcomm’s Motion for Summary
`Judgment that are the subject of the pending requests to seal on the docket for its Motion for
`Summary Judgment.
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`For the foregoing reasons, Qualcomm respectfully requests that the Court grant the
`pending renewed application to seal the narrow portions of the Elhauge Reports, as reflected in
`the Proposed Order submitted therewith (Dkt. 929-5). Upon the Court’s Order on the pending
`requests, Qualcomm will file public, redacted versions of the Elhauge Reports and its Motion for
`Summary Judgment. If the Court prefers a different procedure to address the sealing of the
`Elhauge Reports as part of Qualcomm’s Motion for Summary Judgment, Qualcomm will comply
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL
`
`
`
`Case No. 3:17-md-02773-JSC
`
`
`
`Case 3:17-md-02773-JSC Document 937 Filed 04/07/23 Page 4 of 4
`
`
`
`with any alternative procedure that the Court directs.
`
`Dated: April 7, 2023
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`KEKER, VAN NEST & PETERS LLP
`
`s/ Robert A. Van Nest
`Robert A. Van Nest
`Eugene M. Paige
`Cody S. Harris
`Matan Shacham
`Kristin E. Hucek
`Daniel B. Twomey
`
`Gary A. Bornstein (pro hac vice)
`Yonatan Even (pro hac vice)
`CRAVATH, SWAINE & MOORE LLP
`Worldwide Plaza
`825 Eighth Avenue
`New York, NY 10019-7475
`Tel.:
`(212) 474-1000
`Fax:
`(212) 474-3700
`gbornstein@cravath.com
`yeven@cravath.com
`
`Richard S. Taffet (pro hac vice)
`MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
`101 Park Avenue
`New York, NY 10178-0060
`Tel.:
`(212) 309-6000
`Fax:
`(212) 309-6001
`richard.taffet@morganlewis.com
`
`Geoffrey T. Holtz (SBN 191370)
`MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
`One Market Plaza, Spear Street Tower
`San Francisco, CA 94105-1596
`Tel.:
`(415) 442-1000
`Fax:
`(415) 442-1001
`gholtz@morganlewis.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendant
`QUALCOMM INCORPORATED
`
`By:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL
`
`
`
`Case No. 3:17-md-02773-JSC
`
`

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ ChargeStill Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site