Motion To Reconcile Overlapping Orders

Case No. 5:17-cv-00220-LHK-NMC

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

Counsel Listed on Signature Page

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION,

Plaintiff,

vs.

QUALCOMM INCORPORATED, 

a Delaware corporation,

Defendant.

Case No. 5:17-cv-00220-LHK

QUALCOMM INCORPORATED’S 

ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO 

RECONCILE OVERLAPPING INTERPARTY COURT ORDERS

Dept: Courtroom 8, 4th Floor

Judge: Hon. Lucy H. Koh

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 1242 Filed 01/10/19 Page 1 of 4
1 Motion To Reconcile Overlapping Orders

Case No. 5:17-cv-00220-LHK-NMC

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

Defendant Qualcomm Incorporated (“Qualcomm”) moves the Court for an administrative 

order to address potential and actual overlapping Court rulings on requests to seal.

As the Court is aware, given the highly sensitive nature of much of the evidence presented 

in this trial, Qualcomm and numerous third parties have filed motions to seal portions of the 

evidence that meet the standard for sealing or redactions. However, because parties may seek to 

seal differing portions of the same exhibit, the Court’s rulings granting requests to seal may give 

rise to overlapping redaction orders.

For example, both Qualcomm and Apple moved to seal portions of Exhibits CX0855, 

CX0597, and CX0858 – agreements between those parties – but they moved to redact different 

portions. The Court granted both Apple’s and Qualcomm’s redaction requests and ordered each 

party to publicly file versions of the exhibits reflecting the moving party’s redactions. Literal 

compliance with the Court’s orders would thus result in a scenario whereby each exhibit publicly 

filed by Qualcomm would disclose confidential material that the Court ordered could be redacted 

by Apple, and vice versa. In this instance, Qualcomm was able to recognize the discrepancy and 

reach out to Apple to propose filing versions of the exhibits that reflect both of the Court’s orders 

on redactions.

The parties with interests in redacting the same document do not necessarily file a motion 

to seal on the same day, nor would the Court necessarily issue orders on the sealing requests on 

the same day. Qualcomm is willing to track the Court’s orders on requests to seal by third parties 

and take measures to ensure that neither Qualcomm or a third party inadvertently violates a Court 

order by submitting a public version that fails to redact information the Court ordered to be 

redacted in an order not directed to the filing party. In order to ensure that all relevant sealing 

requests have been adjudicated, Qualcomm proposes that the Court permit 48 hours after an order 

permitting a proposed redaction is entered for Qualcomm to review past or future potentially 

overlapping sealing requests and orders and to reach out to the affected parties to prepare a filing 

that reflects all Court-sanctioned redactions.

Qualcomm would be prepared to further discussion of this issue in Court if the Court so 

wishes.

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 1242 Filed 01/10/19 Page 2 of 4
2 Motion To Reconcile Overlapping Orders

Case No. 5:17-cv-00220-LHK-NMC

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

Dated: January 10, 2019

By:

KEKER, VAN NEST & PETERS LLP

/s/ Robert A. Van Nest

ROBERT A. VAN NEST

Attorneys for Defendant

QUALCOMM INCORPORATED

Robert A. Van Nest (SBN 84065)

Eugene M. Paige (SBN 202849)

Justina Sessions (SBN 270914)

KEKER, VAN NEST & PETERS LLP

633 Battery Street

San Francisco, CA 94111-1809

Telephone: (415) 391-5400 

Facsimile: (415) 397-7188

Gary A. Bornstein (pro hac vice)

Yonatan Even (pro hac vice)

CRAVATH, SWAINE & MOORE LLP

Worldwide Plaza

825 Eighth Avenue

New York, NY 10019-7475

Tel.: (212) 474-1000

Fax: (212) 474-3700

gbornstein@cravath.com

yeven@cravath.com

Richard S. Taffet (pro hac vice)

MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP

101 Park Avenue

New York, NY 10178-0060

Tel.: (212) 309-6000

Fax: (212) 309-6001

richard.taffet@morganlewis.com

Willard K. Tom (pro hac vice)

MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP

1111 Pennsylvania Avenue NW

Washington, DC 20004-2541

Tel.: (202) 739-3000

Fax: (202) 739 3001

willard.tom@morganlewis.com

Geoffrey T. Holtz (SBN 191370)

MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP

One Market, Spear Street Tower

San Francisco, CA 94105-1596

Tel.: (415) 442-1000

Fax: (415) 442-1001

gholtz@morganlewis.com

Attorneys for Defendant 

QUALCOMM INCORPORATED


Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 1242 Filed 01/10/19 Page 3 of 4
3 Motion To Reconcile Overlapping Orders

Case No. 5:17-cv-00220-LHK-NMC

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

FILER’S ATTESTATION

I, Geoffrey T. Holtz, am the ECF user whose identification and password are being used 

to make this filing. In compliance with Civil Local Rule 5-1(i)(3), I hereby attest that the 

signatories of these documents have concurred in this filing.

/s/ Geoffrey T. Holtz

Geoffrey T. Holtz

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 1242 Filed 01/10/19 Page 4 of 4