Case 3:18-cv-00365-WHA Document 184 Filed 01/29/19 Page 1 of 4
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`James J. Foster
`jfoster@princelobel.com
`Aaron S. Jacobs (CA No. 214953)
`ajacobs@princelobel.com
`PRINCE LOBEL TYE LLP
`One International Place, Suite 3700
`Boston, MA 02110
`Telephone: 617-456-8000
`Facsimile: 617-456-8100
`
`Matthew D. Vella (CA No. 314548)
`mvella@princelobel.com
`PRINCE LOBEL TYE LLP
`410 Broadway Avenue, Suite 180
`Laguna Beach, CA 92651
`
`ATTORNEYS FOR THE PLAINTIFFS
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
`
`UNILOC 2017 LLC; and UNILOC
`LUXEMBOURG, S.A.,
`
`v.
`
`APPLE INC.,
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
` Case Nos. 3:18-cv-00360-WHA
`3:18-cv-00363-WHA
`3:18-cv-00365-WHA
`3:18-cv-00572-WHA
`
`
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ UNOPPOSED
`ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO STAY
`THE COURT’S JANUARY 17, 2019,
`ORDER RE SEALING OF ORDER ON
`MOTION TO DISMISS AND MOTION
`TO JOIN PARTY, AND ORDER RE
`ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO FILE
`UNDER SEAL AND MOTION TO
`INTERVENE
`
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-00365-WHA Document 184 Filed 01/29/19 Page 2 of 4
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-11, Plaintiffs, Uniloc 2017 LLC and Uniloc Luxembourg,
`
`S.A., (collectively, “Uniloc”), respectfully move for a stay of the Court’s January 17, 2019, Order
`
`re Sealing of Order on Motion to Dismiss and Motion to Join Party, Dkt. No. 158 (“Order re
`
`Sealing of Order”), and Order Re Administrative Motions to File Under Seal and Motion to
`
`5
`
`Intervene, Dkt. No. 159 (“Order on Motions to File Under Seal”).1 Defendant Apple Inc. (“Apple”)
`
`6
`
`and purported intervenor Electronic Frontier Foundation (“EFF”) both indicated that they would not
`
`7
`
`oppose a brief stay.
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`In particular, Uniloc requests a stay concomitant with the period within which it may appeal
`
`the Court’s aforementioned orders. Uniloc further requests that, if it obtains leave of Court,
`
`pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-9, to file a planned a motion for reconsideration, the stay will remain
`
`in place for a period to extend to two weeks after the Court’s final disposition of the motion for
`
`12
`
`reconsideration.
`
`13
`
`I.
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`On October 25, 2018, Apple moved to dismiss these cases for lack of subject matter
`
`jurisdiction, arguing that a series of transactions various Uniloc entities used to allocate their rights
`
`in the patents-in-suit left no party at all with constitutional standing to sue. See Dkt. No. 135. On
`
`January 9, 2019—one day before oral arguments on Apple’s motion—third-party EFF moved to
`
`intervene for the purpose of opposing the parties’ motions to seal. See Dkt. No. 152.
`
`On January 17, 2019, this Court issued its Order on Motion to Dismiss and Motion to Join
`
`Party (“Order on Motion to Dismiss”), denying Apple’s motion to dismiss and granting Uniloc’s
`
`earlier motion to join Uniloc 2017 as a party. The Court also issued the Order re Sealing of Order,
`
`which sealed the Order on Motion to Dismiss for two weeks, pending appellate review. Finally, the
`
`Order on Motions to File Under Seal denied Uniloc and Apple’s motions to seal with respect to the
`
`motion to dismiss, granted EFF’s motion to intervene as to appellate review only and otherwise
`
`25
`
`denied EFF’s motion to intervene.
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`1 The instant Motion applies to all of the above-captioned cases. For the sake of simplicity, all
`docket citation herein are to Case No. 3:18-cv-00360-WHA.
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION FOR STAY
`
`1
`
`CASE NOS. 3:18-CV-00360-WHA,
`-00363-WHA, -00365-WHA & -00572-WHA
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-00365-WHA Document 184 Filed 01/29/19 Page 3 of 4
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`The Court’s two January 17 orders with respect to sealing documents both explained that
`
`Uniloc had two weeks within which to seek appellate review thereof and that, if such review was
`
`not sought, the parties were ordered to file unredacted versions of their documents on the public
`
`docket by noon the next day.
`
`Following the Court’s January 17 Orders, non-party Fortress Credit Co. LLC (“Fortress”)
`
`retained counsel to address its concerns regarding publication of confidential information contained
`
`in the materials the parties previously sought to seal. In light of EFF’s motion to intervene and the
`
`Court’s January 17 Orders, counsel for Fortress and Uniloc re-reviewed all of the materials that
`
`were the subject of the parties’ motions to seal, with the intent of identifying those portions of the
`
`documents that could be made public without vitiating their—and other third parties’—trade
`
`secrets. Counsel for Fortress and Uniloc then spoke with counsel for EFF and Apple, and provided
`
`them with all of the retrenched redactions. All told, Fortress and Uniloc proposed to make public
`
`perhaps 95% of the redactions and materials under seal across all of the filings with respect to
`
`14
`
`Apple’s motion to dismiss.
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`Uniloc currently intends to seek leave, pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-9, to file a motion for
`
`reconsideration of the Court’s Order re Sealing of Order and Order on Motions to File Under Seal,
`
`based upon the redactions that have been reviewed by EFF and Apple. However, the parties and
`
`non-parties are not yet at the point where these discussions are final.
`
`19
`
`II.
`
`DISCUSSION
`
`Uniloc, Apple, Fortress and EFF are still in discussions regarding the redactions and a
`
`potential motion for reconsideration. That said, counsel for EFF wrote to counsel for Uniloc on
`
`January 28, 2019, and indicated that “EFF does not object to a brief stay of the Court’s January 17,
`
`2019 Order denying motions to seal to allow the Court to evaluate a motion to reconsider by
`
`Uniloc.” Uniloc agrees that a brief stay would be of use.
`
`If a stay is not granted, then Uniloc will be faced with the following choice: It can either
`
`file an appeal, which would divest this Court of jurisdiction to consider the retrenched redactions;
`
`or, Uniloc can file a motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration, pursuant to Civil Local
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION FOR STAY
`
`2
`
`CASE NOS. 3:18-CV-00360-WHA,
`-00363-WHA, -00365-WHA & -00572-WHA
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-00365-WHA Document 184 Filed 01/29/19 Page 4 of 4
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`Rule 7-9, which motions might not be ruled upon in time for the Court’s January 31, 2019, deadline
`
`to retain the status quo.
`
`We hope to resolve the issue of confidentiality in a manner agreeable to all parties, non-
`
`parties and third parties; to promote judicial economy by avoiding an interlocutory appeal; and to
`
`provide appropriate protections for legitimate needs of confidentiality of all involved. The
`
`additional time requested by this unopposed motion will hopefully provide the necessary breathing
`
`7
`
`room to arrive at such a solution.
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`
`For the reasons set forth above, Uniloc respectfully requests that the Court grant Uniloc’s
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`motion for a stay.
`
`
`Date: January 29, 2019
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/s/ Aaron S. Jacobs
`James J. Foster
`jfoster@princelobel.com
`Aaron S. Jacobs (CA No. 214953)
`ajacobs@princelobel.com
`PRINCE LOBEL TYE LLP
`One International Place, Suite 3700
`Boston, MA 02110
`617-456-8000
`
`Matthew D. Vella (CA No. 314548)
`mvella@princelobel.com
`PRINCE LOBEL TYE LLP
`410 Broadway Avenue, Suite 180
`Laguna Beach, CA 92651
`
`ATTORNEYS FOR THE PLAINTIFFS
`
`
`28
`
`
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION FOR STAY
`
`3
`
`CASE NOS. 3:18-CV-00360-WHA,
`-00363-WHA, -00365-WHA & -00572-WHA
`
`