Case 2:17-cv-00140-WCB-RSP Document 284 Filed 01/10/19 Page 1 of 6 PageID #: 12439
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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-
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still 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
