Case 3:14-cv-00757-REP-DJN Document 44 Filed 01/12/15 Page 1 of 5 PageID# 1038
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
`RICHMOND DIVISION
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Civil Action No. 3:14-cv-757-REP
`
`
`
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. and
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA,
`INC.,
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`-vs.-
`
`NVIDIA CORPORATION, VELOCITY
`MICRO, INC. D/B/A VELOCITY MICRO,
`AND VELOCITY HOLDINGS, LLC,
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`
`
`DEFENDANTS’ MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION
`TO FILE DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL
`
`Defendants, by counsel, state as follows in support of their Motion to File Under Seal
`
`their unredacted Memorandum in Support of Motion to Transfer Venue Pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
`
`§ 1404(a), Sever, and Stay and the unredacted Declaration of Randall Copeland attached to that
`
`Memorandum (hereinafter the “Confidential Documents” pursuant to Local Civil Rule 5.
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`In this action, Plaintiffs asserts claims for patent infringement and false advertising under
`
`Va. Code §§ 18.2-216 and 59.1-68.3. In connection with their Motion to Transfer Venue
`
`Pursuant to § 1404(a), Defendants are filing the Declaration of Randall Copeland (the “Copeland
`
`Declaration”), which contains certain confidential business information regarding defendants
`
`Velocity Micro, Inc. and Velocity Holdings, LLC, including the annual revenue and number of
`
`employees of Velocity Holdings, LLC. The confidential information in the Copeland
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
`RICHMOND DIVISION
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Civil Action No. 3:14-cv-757-REP
`
`
`
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. and
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA,
`INC.,
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`-vs.-
`
`NVIDIA CORPORATION, VELOCITY
`MICRO, INC. D/B/A VELOCITY MICRO,
`AND VELOCITY HOLDINGS, LLC,
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`
`
`DEFENDANTS’ MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION
`TO FILE DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL
`
`Defendants, by counsel, state as follows in support of their Motion to File Under Seal
`
`their unredacted Memorandum in Support of Motion to Transfer Venue Pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
`
`§ 1404(a), Sever, and Stay and the unredacted Declaration of Randall Copeland attached to that
`
`Memorandum (hereinafter the “Confidential Documents” pursuant to Local Civil Rule 5.
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`In this action, Plaintiffs asserts claims for patent infringement and false advertising under
`
`Va. Code §§ 18.2-216 and 59.1-68.3. In connection with their Motion to Transfer Venue
`
`Pursuant to § 1404(a), Defendants are filing the Declaration of Randall Copeland (the “Copeland
`
`Declaration”), which contains certain confidential business information regarding defendants
`
`Velocity Micro, Inc. and Velocity Holdings, LLC, including the annual revenue and number of
`
`employees of Velocity Holdings, LLC. The confidential information in the Copeland
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 3:14-cv-00757-REP-DJN Document 44 Filed 01/12/15 Page 2 of 5 PageID# 1039
`
`Declaration is referenced in Defendants’ Memorandum in Support of their Motion to Transfer
`
`Venue, Sever, and Stay. Defendants are filing the Confidential Documents with the Clerk in a
`
`sealed envelope pending the Court’s decision on Defendants’ Motion. Defendants are also filing
`
`redacted public versions of the Confidential Documents on the Court’s ECF system.
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`
`
`The Fourth Circuit has established certain steps a district court must take before a case, or
`
`documents within a case, may be filed under seal. Ashcraft v. Conoco, Inc., 218 F.3d 282, 288
`
`(4th Cir. 2000). In Ashcraft, the Fourth Circuit set forth the prerequisites for an order sealing
`
`documents. Such an order will not be valid unless the district court: (A) provides notice to the
`
`public and gives the public an opportunity to object to the sealing, (B) considers less drastic
`
`alternatives, and (C) provides specific findings in support of the decision to seal and the rejection
`
`of alternatives. Id. These prerequisites are satisfied here.
`
`
`
`
`
`A.
`
`Public Notice
`
`Defendants have filed contemporaneously herewith a Notice of this Motion to be
`
`docketed by the Clerk, which will provide the public with an opportunity to bring objections, if
`
`any, to sealing the documents that are the subject of this Motion. The Court does not need to
`
`provide individual notice to the public of each document that is to be sealed. In re Knight Pub.
`
`Co., 743 F.2d 231, 235 (4th Cir. 1984). It is sufficient to docket the notice “reasonably in
`
`advance of deciding the issue.” Id.
`
`
`
`B.
`
`Less Drastic Alternatives
`
`As indicated above, on January 12, 2015, Defendants filed redacted public versions of the
`
`Confidential Documents and filed unredacted versions of the Confidential Documents with the
`
`Clerk in a sealed envelope pending the Court’s decision on this Motion. The public versions of
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case 3:14-cv-00757-REP-DJN Document 44 Filed 01/12/15 Page 3 of 5 PageID# 1040
`
`the Confidential Documents redact only the confidential information contained in the Copeland
`
`Declaration.
`
`To avoid the public disclosure of that confidential information, Defendants believe
`
`sealing the Confidential Documents is necessary because no procedure other than filing under
`
`seal will be sufficient to preserve the confidentiality of such information. See, e.g., Walker
`
`Systems, Inc. v. Hubbell, Inc., 188 F.R.D. 428, 429 (S.D. W. Va. 1999) (stating “[w]here … the
`
`information sought to be protected concerns documents that the parties in good faith believe
`
`contain trade secrets or other confidential information, and the orders are routinely agreed upon
`
`by the parties, such orders should be granted, especially in cases between direct competitors”)
`
`(citing Bayer AG & Miles, Inc. v. Barr Labs., Inc., 162 F.R.D. 456, 465 (S.D.N.Y. 1995); Fed. R.
`
`Civ. P. 26(c)).
`
`
`
`C.
`
`Specific Findings
`
`The Confidential Documents, which have been appropriately marked and filed under seal
`
`pending the resolution of this Motion, include certain confidential information regarding
`
`defendants Velocity Micro, Inc. and Velocity Holdings, LLC, including the annual revenue and
`
`number of employees of Velocity Holdings, LLC. This confidential information has not been
`
`made public. As recognized by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) and case law, it is
`
`appropriate for federal courts to protect the confidentiality of information such as that referenced
`
`in the Confidential Documents.
`
`Given the confidential nature of the information redacted from the public versions of the
`
`Confidential Documents, and the necessity of filing unredacted versions of those documents with
`
`the Court, there is no alternative other than filing under seal that will protect such information
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case 3:14-cv-00757-REP-DJN Document 44 Filed 01/12/15 Page 4 of 5 PageID# 1041
`
`from disclosure to the public. Defendants therefore seek the sealing of the Confidential
`
`Documents pursuant to Local Civil Rule 5.
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`For the foregoing reasons, Defendants request that the Court grant its Motion and enter
`
`the attached proposed Order providing for the sealing of the Confidential Documents.
`
`
`
`NVIDIA CORPORATION
`VELOCITY MICRO, INC.
`D/B/A VELOCITY MICRO
`VELOCITY HOLDINGS, LLC
`
`
`By:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/
`
`Of Counsel
`
`
`Dabney J. Carr, IV, VSB No. 28679
`dabney.carr@troutmansanders.com
`Robert A. Angle, VSB No. 37691
`robert.angle@troutmansanders.com
`TROUTMAN SANDERS LLP
`1001 Haxall Point
`Richmond, VA 23219
`T: (804) 697-1200
`F: (804) 697-1339
`
`Clement J. Naples (admitted pro hac vice)
`clement.naples@lw.com
`LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
`885 Third Avenue
`New York, NY 10022-4834
`Tel: (212) 906-1200; Fax: (212) 751-4864
`
`Counsel for NVIDIA Corporation
`Velocity Micro, Inc. d/b/a Velocity Micro
`and Velocity Holdings, LLC
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case 3:14-cv-00757-REP-DJN Document 44 Filed 01/12/15 Page 5 of 5 PageID# 1042
`
`
`
`
`I hereby certify that on this 12th day of January, 2015, I will electronically file the
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`foregoing with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system, which will then send a
`
`notification of such filing (NEF) to the following:
`
`Robert W. McFarland
`rmcfarland@mcguirewoods.com
`Sarah K. McConaughy
`smcconaughy@mcguriewoods.com
`McGuire Woods LLP
`101 W. Main Street, Suite 9000
`Norfolk, VA 23510
`
`Sean F. Murphy
`sfmurphy@mcguirewoods.com
`McGuireWoods LLP
`1750 Tysons Boulevard, Suite 1800
`Tysons Corner, VA 22102-4215
`
`Counsel for Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and
`Samsung Electronics America, Inc.
`
`Darin W. Snyder
`dsnyder@omm.com
`Alexander B. Parker
`aparker@omm.com
`Elysa Q. Wan
`ewan@omm.com
`O'Melveny & Myers LLP
`Two Embarcadero Center, 28th Floor
`San Francisco, CA 94111
`
`Vision L. Winter
`vwinter@omm.com
`Ryan K. Yagura
`ryagura@omm.com
`Michael A. Koplow
`O'Melveny & Myers LLP
`400 South Hope Street, 18th Floor
`Los Angeles, CA 90071
`
`Mishima Alam
`malam@omm.com
`O'Melveny & Myers LLP
`1625 Eye Street NW
`Washington, DC 20006
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/
`Dabney J. Carr, IV (VSB No. 28679)
`dabney.carr@troutmansanders.com
`Robert A. Angle (VSB No. 37691)
`robert.angle@troutmansanders.com
`TROUTMAN SANDERS LLP
`1001 Haxall Point
`Richmond, VA 23219
`Telephone: (804) 697-1200
`Facsimile: (804) 697-1339
`
`
`
`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
