`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`CYWEE GROUP LTD.,
`
`Plaintiff
`
`v.
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.
`AND SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS
`AMERICA, INC.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`
`
`NO. 2:17-CV-00140-WCB-RSP
`
`
`
`DEFENDANTS SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. AND SAMSUNG
`ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC.’S SURREPLY IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S
`MOTION TO DE-DESIGNATE CONFIDENTIAL MATERIALS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:17-cv-00140-WCB-RSP Document 284 Filed 01/10/19 Page 2 of 6 PageID #: 12440
`
`
`Despite CyWee’s mischaracterization of Samsung’s witnesses’ testimony and its
`
`similarly flawed arguments directed to Dr. Itamar Simonson’s expert report, Samsung has
`
`demonstrated that the disputed materials merit their designations under the Protective Order. If
`
`the materials were to be de-designated, Samsung would lose the competitive edge it holds by
`
`maintaining the disputed information confidential. CyWee ignores Samsung’s rationale for the
`
`disputed materials’ designations, instead reiterating its argument that the information in the
`
`disputed materials lacks “value.” But that argument only relates to whether the information
`
`qualifies as a trade secret, and the Protective Order applies to both trade secrets and “confidential
`
`or proprietary information.” Thus, the disputed materials merit their current designations, and
`
`CyWee has not shown otherwise.
`
`I.
`
`
`
`CyWee Fails to Rebut Samsung’s Showing that the Disputed Materials Merit Their
`Current Designations
`
`CyWee does not address either reason for why the information in the disputed materials
`
`qualifies as “confidential or proprietary information,” which merits a “RESTRICTED –
`
`ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY” or “RESTRICTED – CONFIDENTIAL SOURCE CODE”
`
`designation under the Protective Order. Dkt. No. 39 ¶ 8. Rather, CyWee re-packages its baseless
`
`argument that Samsung cannot show that information in the disputed materials deserves
`
`protection against public disclosure because that information lacks the “value” required for
`
`information to constitute a trade secret.
`
`
`
`Contrary to CyWee’s representations, Samsung has always treated
`
`
`
` the disputed materials as highly
`
`sensitive “confidential or proprietary information.” Dkt. No. 271 at 3–5; Dkt. No. 271-1 ¶¶ 4–5;
`
`Dkt. No. 271-2 ¶¶ 4–5. And, in view of Samsung’s identification of specific harms that would
`
`result from public disclosure of that information, Dkt. No. 271 at 3–5, Samsung has made the
`
`-1-
`
`
`
`Case 2:17-cv-00140-WCB-RSP Document 284 Filed 01/10/19 Page 3 of 6 PageID #: 12441
`
`
`“particular and specific demonstration of fact” required to support its rationale for assigning the
`
`disputed materials their current designations under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c).
`
`In particular, contrary to CyWee’s argument that Samsung has not justified its
`
`designations of the disputed materials, Samsung adequately explained why the disputed materials
`
`are properly considered confidential and also why public disclosure of the information in those
`
`materials would harm Samsung:
`
`
`
`First, Samsung should not be unjustly stripped of the tactical advantage of
`
`keeping confidential its business analyses related to the technology at issue in this
`
`case.
`
`
`
`,
`
`Samsung’s competitors could use that proprietary business knowledge to adjust
`
`their own business strategies and unfairly benefit from Samsung’s efforts. Dkt.
`
`No. 271 at 3–4.
`
` Second, public disclosure of
`
`
`
` would allow Samsung’s
`
`competitors
`
`to wrongfully
`
`take advantage of Samsung’s
`
`research and
`
`development efforts by
`
`
`
`
`
`those competitors would save resources without having to fairly
`
`compensate Samsung for their savings. Dkt. No. 271 at 4.
`
`II.
`
`CyWee Mischaracterizes Samsung’s Witnesses’ Deposition Testimony and Dr.
`Simonson’s Expert Report
`
`Aside from CyWee’s failure to address Samsung’s reasons for the designations of the
`
`disputed materials, none of the evidence CyWee relies upon supports its arguments. CyWee
`
`-2-
`
`
`
`Case 2:17-cv-00140-WCB-RSP Document 284 Filed 01/10/19 Page 4 of 6 PageID #: 12442
`
`
`falsely argues that “
`
`
`
`CyWee’s arguments regarding Dr. Simonson’s expert report suffer a similar flaw.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`
`Samsung has a reasonable basis to maintain the current designations of all disputed
`
`materials, and CyWee has not shown otherwise. Thus, Samsung respectfully requests that
`
`CyWee’s motion be denied.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-3-
`
`
`
`Case 2:17-cv-00140-WCB-RSP Document 284 Filed 01/10/19 Page 5 of 6 PageID #: 12443
`
`
`DATED: January 2, 2019
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`By: /s/ Christopher W. Kennerly
`Christopher W. Kennerly
`TX Bar No. 00795077
`chriskennerly@paulhastings.com
`PAUL HASTINGS LLP
`1117 S. California Ave.
`Palo Alto, California 94304
`Telephone: (650) 320-1800
`Facsimile:
`(650) 320-1900
`
`Barry Sher (pro hac vice)
`NY Bar No. 2325777
`barrysher@paulhastings.com
`Zachary Zwillinger (pro hac vice)
`NY Bar No. 5071154
`zacharyzwillinger@paulhastings.com
`PAUL HASTINGS LLP
`200 Park Avenue
`New York, New York 10166
`Telephone: (212) 318-6000
`Facsimile:
`(212) 319-4090
`
`Elizabeth L. Brann (pro hac vice)
`CA Bar No. 222873
`elizabethbrann@paulhastings.com
`PAUL HASTINGS LLP
`4747 Executive Drive, 12th Floor
`San Diego, California 92121
`Telephone: (858) 458-3000
`Facsimile:
`(858) 458-3005
`
`Melissa R. Smith
`TX Bar No. 24001351
`melissa@gillamsmithlaw.com
`GILLAM & SMITH, LLP
`303 S. Washington Ave.
`Marshall, TX 75670
`Telephone: (903) 934-8450
`Facsimile: (903) 934-9257
`
`Attorneys for Defendants
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD AND
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA,
`INC.
`
`-4-
`
`
`
`Case 2:17-cv-00140-WCB-RSP Document 284 Filed 01/10/19 Page 6 of 6 PageID #: 12444
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document was filed
`
`electronically in compliance with Local Rule CV-5 on January 2, 2019. As of this date, all
`
`counsel of record had consented to electronic service and are being served with a copy of this
`
`document through the Court’s CM/ECF system under Local Rule CV-5(a)(3)(A) and by email.
`
` /s/ Christopher W. Kennerly
`Christopher W. Kennerly
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORIZATION TO SEAL
`
`I hereby certify that under Local Rule CV-5(a)(7), the foregoing document is filed under
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`seal pursuant to the Court’s Protective Order entered in this matter.
`
`
`
`
` /s/ Christopher W. Kennerly
`Christopher W. Kennerly
`
`
`
`-5-
`
`