Nonetheless, counsel interviewed multiple knowledgeable individuals within QCT to investigate these fields.

Case No. 5:17-md-02773-LHK 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1292728 Pursuant to Civil Local Rules 7-11 and 79-5(d), Defendant Qualcomm Incorporated (“Qualcomm”) hereby moves the Court to issue an administrative order authorizing the filing under seal of portions of Qualcomm’s Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification (“Opposition to Class Certification”), the accompanying exhibits, and Qualcomm’s Motion to Strike the Declaration of Dr. Kenneth Flamm (“Motion to Strike”).

In accordance with the Court’s Local Rules, public, redacted versions of the Opposition to Class Certification, accompanying exhibits, and Motion to Strike have been filed.

Case No. 5:17-md-02773-LHK 1292728 First, Qualcomm’s Opposition to Class Certification cites to or references information designated as confidential by Plaintiffs and third parties under the governing Protective Orders.

Finally, Qualcomm’s Motion to Strike cites to or references information designated as confidential by Plaintiffs and third parties under the governing Protective Orders.

Accordingly, to comply with the Protective Orders and for the foregoing reasons, Qualcomm respectfully moves this Court to keep sealed the portions of Qualcomm’s Opposition to Class Certification, accompanying exhibits, and Motion to Strike as described above and in accordance with the proposed redactions filed as attachments to Qualcomm’s Administrative Motion to File under Seal.

Case No. 5:17-md-02773-LHK 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1288342 Pursuant to Civil Local Rules 7-11 and 79-5(d), Defendant Qualcomm Incorporated (“Qualcomm”) hereby moves the Court to issue an administrative order authorizing the filing under seal of portions of Qualcomm’s Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification and the accompanying exhibits.

Qualcomm moves to file under seal the following document designated by the Plaintiffs as confidential under the Protective Orders: Exhibit D to the Harris Declaration.

Qualcomm moves to file under seal the following documents designated by the FTC as confidential under the Protective Orders: Exhibit E to the Harris Declaration.

Qualcomm moves to file under seal the following documents designated by Apple as confidential under the Protective Orders: Exhibits F, G, and H to the Harris Declaration.

Qualcomm moves to file under seal the following documents designated by the Lenovo as confidential under the Protective Orders: Exhibit I to the Harris Declaration.

Each of the types of data that Plaintiffs are requesting to be produced by Qualcomm, the sole Defendant in this litigation, are clearly relevant.

This information will also be relevant to evaluating economies of scale in chipset production (which could be relevant 1 The reasons for Plaintiffs submitting this as a separate statement are set forth in the accompanying separate statement in support of Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Production of Qualcomm Financial Planning and Analysis Materials, at 1 n.1, concurrently filed herewith.

4 See May 2, 2018 letter from Rio Pierce to Yonatan Even, Exhibit A. 5 See, e.g., In re Rail Freight Fuel Surcharge Antitrust Litig., No. 07-489, 2009 WL 3443563, at *4 (D.D.C. Oct. 23, 2009) (compelling production of transaction-level data by defendants to evaluate product market boundaries); In re Namenda Direct Purchaser Antitrust Litig., No. 15-civ-7488, 2017 WL 4700367, at *2-*3 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 19, 2017) (dismissing arguments of third party subpoena target on burden as “unpersuasive” because “[w]hile the money and time that will be spent on the production is not trifling, it is small in comparison with the potential damages in this case”).

to determining exclusionary effects on rivals) and to evaluating Qualcomm's claims about how it invests in R&D and how it tries to recover those costs.

Courts in this District recognize that “[t]he Federal Rules of Civil Procedure clearly contemplate the production of information from dynamic databases ... [because] Rule 34(a)(1) (A) allows a party to request ‘any designated documents or electronically stored information ... stored in any medium from which information can be obtained.’”6 For example, in Apple v. Samsung, Judge Grewal recognized that “[c]ourts regularly require parties to produce reports from dynamic databases, holding that the ‘technical burden ... of creating a new dataset for the instant litigation does not excuse production.’”7 In that case, Judge Grewal was “dubious” of Apple’s “generalized claims of burden in complying with discovery obligations” such as the assertion that Apple “would engage ‘multiple financial groups’ in what is ‘likely to be several months of coordinated effort’” in response to Samsung’s motion to compel data production.8 Judge Grewal rejected Samsung’s motion to compel because Samsung had already submitted the expert reports that would use the data.9 But here the situation is the reverse – Plaintiffs are seeking this material precisely for use in expert reports that have not yet been submitted.

Plaintiffs file this separate statement1 in support of their motion to compel production of documents from specific portions of financial planning and analysis (“FP&A”) folders maintained respectively by Qualcomm’s chipset and licensing businesses.2 The Court should compel production of these FP&A materials because they are responsive to many of Plaintiffs RPDs,3 should have been produced based on Qualcomm’s prior representations, and can be produced with minimal burden from easily collectable central databases.

Plaintiffs met and conferred with Qualcomm today regarding submission of a joint discovery statement but could not reach agreement on a process for doing so.

Plaintiffs are filing this separate statement because the motion to compel deadline is today and have not reached agreement with Qualcomm on certain document and data production issues.

requests are for QCT forecast and budget materials stored on the QCT FP&A folder, including subfolders with the titles “Actuals, Budget, Mid Quarter Outlooks, Major Outlooks; Cost Models.” If Qualcomm has produced these materials without limitation, then it faces no additional burden for these requests.

In recognition of Rule 26’s proportionality requirement, Plaintiffs are only requesting that the Court compel production from these two FP&A folders – a small fraction of the terabytes of material that Qualcomm stores on this server.9 In addition, the FP&A materials are also highly relevant as regularly prepared FP&A documents that Qualcomm has produced directly touch on key issues in the case.