Preview
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/10/2023 08:00 PM INDEX NO. 656312/2022
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 76 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/10/2023
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF NEW YORK
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.,
Index No. 656312/2022
Plaintiff and Counterclaim Defendant, Hon. Melissa A. Crane, J.S.C.
v.
MPEG LA, L.L.C.,
Defendant and Counterclaimant.
MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF SAMSUNG’S
(PROPOSED) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE TO SEAL
QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN LLP
Michael B. Carlinsky
William B. Adams
Owen F. Roberts
51 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor
New York, New York 10010
(212) 849-7000
michaelcarlinsky@quinnemanuel.com
williamadams@quinnemanuel.com
owenroberts@quinnemanuel.com
Kevin Hardy (admitted pro hac vice)
1300 I Street, N.W., Suite 900
Washington, DC 20005
(202) 538-8000
kevinhardy@quinnemanuel.com
Attorneys for Plaintiff Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.
1 of 6
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/10/2023 08:00 PM INDEX NO. 656312/2022
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 76 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/10/2023
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Page(s)
Cases
See Cohen v. S.A.C. Capital Advisors, LLC, 11 Misc 3d 1054(A) (Sup Ct 2006) .......................... 2
Crain Commc’ns Inc. v. Hughes, 135 AD2d 351 (1st Dep’t 1987) .................................................. 2
i
2 of 6
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/10/2023 08:00 PM INDEX NO. 656312/2022
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 76 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/10/2023
Plaintiff Samsung Electronics Co., LTD. (“Samsung”) respectfully submits this
memorandum of law in support of its (Proposed) Order to Show Cause to Seal (the “Order to Show
Cause”) the Memorandum Of Law In Opposition To MPEG LA’s Second Motion To Dismiss
Samsung’s Second Cause Of Action (“Opposition”) filed by Samsung in this action, pursuant to
Rule 7 of the Court’s Part 60 Practices and Procedures, and paragraph 12(a) of the Stipulation and
Order for the Production and Exchange of Confidential Information (“Confidentiality Order”)
entered in this case. (NYSCEF Doc. No. 40).
On March 1, 2023, Defendant MPEG LA, L.L.C. (“MPEG LA”) filed its second motion to
dismiss Samsung’s claim for breach of the implied covenant. (NYSCEF Doc. Nos. 63, 64
(“Motion”)). Contemporaneously with the instant submission, Samsung filed a redacted version
of its Opposition to MPEG LA’s Motion on the public docket. Attached to the Affirmation of
Owen Roberts, filed herewith, as Exhibit A is an unredacted version of Samsung’s Opposition.
The content redacted from Samsung’s Opposition reflects documents that MPEG LA has produced
in discovery in this action, and which MPEG LA has designated confidential under the
Confidentiality Order. Samsung filed these documents under seal as Exhibits to the Carlinsky Aff.
Section 12 of the Confidentiality Order provides, in relevant part, that a party who seeks to
file with the Court
any pleading, brief or memorandum which reproduces, paraphrases
or discloses Confidential Information or Highly Confidential –
Attorney’s Eyes-Only Information shall file the document, pleading,
brief, or memorandum on the NYSCEF system in redacted form
until the Court renders a decision on any motion to seal (the
“Redacted Filing”). If the Producing Party fails to move to seal
within seven (7) days of the Redacted Filing, the Party (or, as
appropriate, non-party) making the filing shall take steps to replace
the Redacted Filing with its corresponding unredacted version.
1
3 of 6
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/10/2023 08:00 PM INDEX NO. 656312/2022
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 76 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/10/2023
(NYSCEF Doc. No. 40 ¶ 12(a)). And pursuant to Section 216.1 of the Uniform Rules for the New
York State Trial Courts, documents shall be sealed for good cause. In determining whether good
cause exists, the Court considers “the interests of the public as well as of the parties.” See Cohen
v. S.A.C. Capital Advisors, LLC, 11 Misc 3d 1054(A), at *7 (Sup Ct 2006) (quoting 22 NYCRR
216.1). Sealing is proper where there is no “legitimate public concern” that outweighs the
compelling interest of the movant. Crain Commc’ns Inc. v. Hughes, 135 AD2d 351, 352 (1st Dep’t
1987).
Should MPEG LA “move to seal within seven (7) days of the Redacted Filing” pursuant to
¶ 12(a) of the Confidentiality Order and Samsung’s (Proposed) Order to Show Cause, Samsung
will not oppose such a motion. Alternatively, should MPEG LA not move to seal, Samsung does
not oppose making its Opposition public in its entirety, and will “take steps to replace the Redacted
Filing with its corresponding unredacted version.”
For all of the foregoing reasons, Samsung respectfully requests that the Court issue the
(Proposed) Order to Show Cause.
2
4 of 6
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/10/2023 08:00 PM INDEX NO. 656312/2022
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 76 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/10/2023
Dated: March 10, 2023 Respectfully submitted,
By: /s/ Michael B. Carlinsky
Michael B. Carlinsky
William B. Adams
Owen F. Roberts
51 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor
New York, New York 10010
(212) 849-7000
michaelcarlinsky@quinnemanuel.com
williamadams@quinnemanuel.com
owenroberts@quinnemanuel.com
Kevin Hardy (admitted pro hac vice)
1300 I Street, N.W., Suite 900
Washington, DC 20005
(202) 538-8000
kevinhardy@quinnemanuel.com
Attorneys for Plaintiff
3
5 of 6
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/10/2023 08:00 PM INDEX NO. 656312/2022
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 76 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/10/2023
ATTORNEY CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
COMMERCIAL DIVISION RULE 17
I, Michael B. Carlinsky, an attorney duly admitted to practice law before the courts of the
State of New York, hereby certify that this Memorandum of Law complies with the word count
limit set forth in Rule 17 of the Commercial Division of the Supreme Court (22 NYCRR 202.70(g))
because it contains 483 words, excluding the parts of the memorandum exempted by Rule 17. In
preparing this certification, I have relied on the word count of the word-processing system used to
prepare this memorandum of law.
Dated: New York, New York
March 10, 2023
/s/ Michael B. Carlinsky
Michael B. Carlinsky
4
6 of 6
Preview
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/10/2023 08:00 PM INDEX NO. 656312/2022 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 76 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/10/2023 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., Index No. 656312/2022 Plaintiff and Counterclaim Defendant, Hon. Melissa A. Crane, J.S.C. v. MPEG LA, L.L.C., Defendant and Counterclaimant. MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF SAMSUNG’S (PROPOSED) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE TO SEAL QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN LLP Michael B. Carlinsky William B. Adams Owen F. Roberts 51 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor New York, New York 10010 (212) 849-7000 michaelcarlinsky@quinnemanuel.com williamadams@quinnemanuel.com owenroberts@quinnemanuel.com Kevin Hardy (admitted pro hac vice) 1300 I Street, N.W., Suite 900 Washington, DC 20005 (202) 538-8000 kevinhardy@quinnemanuel.com Attorneys for Plaintiff Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. 1 of 6 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/10/2023 08:00 PM INDEX NO. 656312/2022 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 76 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/10/2023 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page(s) Cases See Cohen v. S.A.C. Capital Advisors, LLC, 11 Misc 3d 1054(A) (Sup Ct 2006) .......................... 2 Crain Commc’ns Inc. v. Hughes, 135 AD2d 351 (1st Dep’t 1987) .................................................. 2 i 2 of 6 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/10/2023 08:00 PM INDEX NO. 656312/2022 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 76 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/10/2023 Plaintiff Samsung Electronics Co., LTD. (“Samsung”) respectfully submits this memorandum of law in support of its (Proposed) Order to Show Cause to Seal (the “Order to Show Cause”) the Memorandum Of Law In Opposition To MPEG LA’s Second Motion To Dismiss Samsung’s Second Cause Of Action (“Opposition”) filed by Samsung in this action, pursuant to Rule 7 of the Court’s Part 60 Practices and Procedures, and paragraph 12(a) of the Stipulation and Order for the Production and Exchange of Confidential Information (“Confidentiality Order”) entered in this case. (NYSCEF Doc. No. 40). On March 1, 2023, Defendant MPEG LA, L.L.C. (“MPEG LA”) filed its second motion to dismiss Samsung’s claim for breach of the implied covenant. (NYSCEF Doc. Nos. 63, 64 (“Motion”)). Contemporaneously with the instant submission, Samsung filed a redacted version of its Opposition to MPEG LA’s Motion on the public docket. Attached to the Affirmation of Owen Roberts, filed herewith, as Exhibit A is an unredacted version of Samsung’s Opposition. The content redacted from Samsung’s Opposition reflects documents that MPEG LA has produced in discovery in this action, and which MPEG LA has designated confidential under the Confidentiality Order. Samsung filed these documents under seal as Exhibits to the Carlinsky Aff. Section 12 of the Confidentiality Order provides, in relevant part, that a party who seeks to file with the Court any pleading, brief or memorandum which reproduces, paraphrases or discloses Confidential Information or Highly Confidential – Attorney’s Eyes-Only Information shall file the document, pleading, brief, or memorandum on the NYSCEF system in redacted form until the Court renders a decision on any motion to seal (the “Redacted Filing”). If the Producing Party fails to move to seal within seven (7) days of the Redacted Filing, the Party (or, as appropriate, non-party) making the filing shall take steps to replace the Redacted Filing with its corresponding unredacted version. 1 3 of 6 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/10/2023 08:00 PM INDEX NO. 656312/2022 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 76 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/10/2023 (NYSCEF Doc. No. 40 ¶ 12(a)). And pursuant to Section 216.1 of the Uniform Rules for the New York State Trial Courts, documents shall be sealed for good cause. In determining whether good cause exists, the Court considers “the interests of the public as well as of the parties.” See Cohen v. S.A.C. Capital Advisors, LLC, 11 Misc 3d 1054(A), at *7 (Sup Ct 2006) (quoting 22 NYCRR 216.1). Sealing is proper where there is no “legitimate public concern” that outweighs the compelling interest of the movant. Crain Commc’ns Inc. v. Hughes, 135 AD2d 351, 352 (1st Dep’t 1987). Should MPEG LA “move to seal within seven (7) days of the Redacted Filing” pursuant to ¶ 12(a) of the Confidentiality Order and Samsung’s (Proposed) Order to Show Cause, Samsung will not oppose such a motion. Alternatively, should MPEG LA not move to seal, Samsung does not oppose making its Opposition public in its entirety, and will “take steps to replace the Redacted Filing with its corresponding unredacted version.” For all of the foregoing reasons, Samsung respectfully requests that the Court issue the (Proposed) Order to Show Cause. 2 4 of 6 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/10/2023 08:00 PM INDEX NO. 656312/2022 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 76 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/10/2023 Dated: March 10, 2023 Respectfully submitted, By: /s/ Michael B. Carlinsky Michael B. Carlinsky William B. Adams Owen F. Roberts 51 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor New York, New York 10010 (212) 849-7000 michaelcarlinsky@quinnemanuel.com williamadams@quinnemanuel.com owenroberts@quinnemanuel.com Kevin Hardy (admitted pro hac vice) 1300 I Street, N.W., Suite 900 Washington, DC 20005 (202) 538-8000 kevinhardy@quinnemanuel.com Attorneys for Plaintiff 3 5 of 6 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/10/2023 08:00 PM INDEX NO. 656312/2022 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 76 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/10/2023 ATTORNEY CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO COMMERCIAL DIVISION RULE 17 I, Michael B. Carlinsky, an attorney duly admitted to practice law before the courts of the State of New York, hereby certify that this Memorandum of Law complies with the word count limit set forth in Rule 17 of the Commercial Division of the Supreme Court (22 NYCRR 202.70(g)) because it contains 483 words, excluding the parts of the memorandum exempted by Rule 17. In preparing this certification, I have relied on the word count of the word-processing system used to prepare this memorandum of law. Dated: New York, New York March 10, 2023 /s/ Michael B. Carlinsky Michael B. Carlinsky 4 6 of 6