1

Case No. 17-cv-00220-LHK

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION TO SEAL QUALCOMM’S OPPOSITION 

TO BAIN’S MOTION TO QUASH TRIAL SUBPOENA

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION,

Plaintiff,

v.

QUALCOMM INCORPORATED,

Defendant.

Case No.17-cv-00220-LHK 

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND

DENYING IN PART MOTION TO 

SEAL QUALCOMM’S OPPOSITION 

TO BAIN’S MOTION TO QUASH 

TRIAL SUBPOENA

Re: Dkt. No. 1160

Before the Court is a joint administrative motion to seal Qualcomm’s opposition to third 

party Bain’s motion to quash the trial subpoena to Christopher Johnson. ECF No. 1060. Applying 

the compelling reasons standard, Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178-79

(9th Cir. 2006), the Court rules as follows:

Document Portions of Pages Ruling

Qualcomm’s Opposition to Motion to 

Quash

1:17 DENIED.

Qualcomm’s Opposition to Motion to 

Quash

2:7-12 DENIED.

Qualcomm’s Opposition to Motion to 

Quash

2:18-20 DENIED.

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 1198 Filed 01/08/19 Page 1 of 3
2

Case No. 17-cv-00220-LHK

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION TO SEAL QUALCOMM’S OPPOSITION 

TO BAIN’S MOTION TO QUASH TRIAL SUBPOENA

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Document Portions of Pages Ruling

Qualcomm’s Opposition to Motion to 

Quash

2:26-3:8 DENIED.

Qualcomm’s Opposition to Motion to 

Quash

3:11-13 DENIED.

Qualcomm’s Opposition to Motion to 

Quash

3:14-16 DENIED.

Qualcomm’s Opposition to Motion to 

Quash

3:17-20 DENIED.

Qualcomm’s Opposition to Motion to 

Quash

3:21-22 DENIED.

Qualcomm’s Opposition to Motion to 

Quash

3:23-4:2 DENIED.

Qualcomm’s Opposition to Motion to 

Quash

5:15-16 DENIED.

Qualcomm’s Opposition to Motion to 

Quash

6:14-17 DENIED.

Qualcomm’s Opposition to Motion to 

Quash

6:19-21 DENIED.

Qualcomm’s Opposition to Motion to 

Quash

11:17 DENIED.

Qualcomm’s Opposition to Motion to 

Quash

12:12-13 DENIED.

Byar’s Exhibit A to Qualcomm’s 

Opposition

10:15-16 DENIED.

Byar’s Exhibit A to Qualcomm’s 

Opposition

38:7-39:14 DENIED.

Byar’s Exhibit A to Qualcomm’s 

Opposition

39:17-19 DENIED.

Byar’s Exhibit A to Qualcomm’s 

Opposition

41:22-42:12 DENIED.

Byar’s Exhibit A to Qualcomm’s 

Opposition

52:23-53:8 DENIED.

Byar’s Exhibit A to Qualcomm’s 

Opposition

76:14-23 DENIED.

Byar’s Exhibit A to Qualcomm’s 

Opposition

81:21-82:2 DENIED.

Byar’s Exhibit A to Qualcomm’s 

Opposition

87:22-88:2 DENIED.

Byar’s Exhibit A to Qualcomm’s 

Opposition

95:21-96:8 DENIED.

Byar’s Exhibit A to Qualcomm’s 

Opposition

101:6-11 GRANTED.

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 1198 Filed 01/08/19 Page 2 of 3
3

Case No. 17-cv-00220-LHK

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION TO SEAL QUALCOMM’S OPPOSITION 

TO BAIN’S MOTION TO QUASH TRIAL SUBPOENA

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Document Portions of Pages Ruling

Byar’s Exhibit A to Qualcomm’s 

Opposition

103:7-11 DENIED.

Qualcomm shall publicly file its Opposition and Exhibit A to its Opposition consistent 

with this Order by Thursday, January 10, 2019.

Byar’s Exhibit D to Qualcomm’s Opposition was introduced at trial on January 8, 2019, as 

QX0092. The Court ruled on Intel’s sealing request as to this document on January 8, 2019. ECF 

No. 1189. Therefore, the joint administrative motion to seal this document is denied as moot.

As to Byar’s Exhibits B, C, and E to Qualcomm’s Opposition, the Court denies the joint 

administrative motion to seal these documents in their entirety without prejudice. Based on Intel’s 

more narrowly tailored sealing motion filed on January 7, 2019, and the public disclosures of 

Intel’s witness, Ms. Evans, at trial on January 8, 2019, it is clear that the joint administrative

motion to seal these documents in their entirety is overly broad. Thus, Bain and/or Intel shall file a 

renewed motion to seal these exhibits by Friday, January 11, 2019. If Bain and/or Intel fail to file a 

renewed motion to seal by January 11, 2019, Qualcomm shall publicly file these documents by

Monday, January 14, 2019.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 8, 2019

______________________________________

LUCY H. KOH

United States District Judge

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 1198 Filed 01/08/19 Page 3 of 3