Part of the reason for the hearing, aside from a speedier resolution, is that there is some question about why there is a motion to unseal the HTC agreement.

Jump To Comments

Apple claims that it and HTC don't mind providing it, so long as the "consideration" is kept sealed from the public (technically that it be marked "Highly Confidential - Attorney's Eyes Only" as per the protective order in the case), and Apple claims that Samsung has agreed to that condition, while preserving its rights to request the unredacted version later, making the motion moot. But it adds that Samsung doesn't agree that it's moot, so there is more to this story than Apple is telling.

In an email [PDF] attached as an exhibit to Apple's opposition, from the new lawyer just added to Samsung's team, Daryl M. Crone, who I gather will be handling the HTC issue, since Quinn Emanuel represented HTC in the other dispute with Apple, Samsung explains why it can't agree to the two restrictions yet:

We are not willing to agree to the portion of the stipulation that requires Samsung to withdraw its motion at this time or states that Samsung will withdraw its motion seeking the unredacted agreement. As stated in my email of this morning, we need to see the redacted Agreement first. Please let us know if you are still willing to provide the redacted Agreement to Samsung given our commitment to treat it as Highly Confidential—Attorneys’ Eyes Only.

Here are the ABA's Model Rules of Professional Conduct, if you are interested in more precision about what lawyers ideally do and don't do. For example, here's the section on former clients:

Client-Lawyer Relationship Rule 1.9 Duties To Former Clients

(a) A lawyer who has formerly represented a client in a matter shall not thereafter represent another person in the same or a substantially related matter in which that person's interests are materially adverse to the interests of the former client unless the former client gives informed consent, confirmed in writing.

(b) A lawyer shall not knowingly represent a person in the same or a substantially related matter in which a firm with which the lawyer formerly was associated had previously represented a client

(1) whose interests are materially adverse to that person; and

(2) about whom the lawyer had acquired information protected by Rules 1.6 and 1.9(c) that is material to the matter;

unless the former client gives informed consent, confirmed in writing.

(c) A lawyer who has formerly represented a client in a matter or whose present or former firm has formerly represented a client in a matter shall not thereafter:

(1) use information relating to the representation to the disadvantage of the former client except as these Rules would permit or require with respect to a client, or when the information has become generally known; or

(2) reveal information relating to the representation except as these Rules would permit or require with respect to a client.

Why Apple finds that Samsung email hard to understand or why it would think that the email, which clearly does not agree to the two restrictions yet, should be characterized to the judge as Samsung agreeing and hence mooting Samsung's motion is a puzzlement to me. What's not hard to parse out is that there is a lack of trust in this picture, and maybe some issues about wording, and that's something the judge may be able to fix by just ruling on the matter.

Consideration can mean more than money, by the way, and that might just be the clue to what's going on here. Samsung may be worried about Apple word tricks, resulting in Samsung agreeing to more than it means to.

Here's the docket, including the notice about the hearing:

2148 - Filed & Entered: 11/19/2012
NOTICE by Apple Inc. re [2136] Order on Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Musika Exhibit 12 - Previously Filed Under Seal (Attachments: # (1) Musika Exhibit 13 - Previously Filed Under Seal, # (2) Musika Exhibit 21 - Previously Filed Under Seal, # (3) Musika Exhibit 25 - Previously Filed Under Seal, # (4) Musika Exhibit 49 - Previously Filed Under Seal)(Hung, Richard) (Filed on 11/19/2012)

2149 - Filed & Entered: 11/20/2012
Administrative Motion to File Under Seal filed by Apple Inc.. (Attachments: # ( 1) Apple's Opposition to Samsung's Motion to Compel Depositions and to File Supplemental Brief in Opposition to Permanent Injunction (Public Version), # (2) Declaration of Erik Olson in Support of Apple's Opposition to Samsung's Motion to Compel Deposition and to File Supplemental Brief (Public Version), # (3) Exhibit 1, # (4) Exhibit 2, # (5) Exhibit 3, # (6) Exhibit 4 (Public Version), # (7) Exhibit 5)(Jacobs, Michael) (Filed on 11/20/2012)

2150 - Filed & Entered: 11/20/2012
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Apple Inc. (Jacobs, Michael) (Filed on 11/20/2012)

2151 - Filed & Entered: 11/20/2012
RESPONSE (re [2144] MOTION to Compel Production of Settlement Agreement with HTC ) Apple's Opposition to Samsung's Motion to Compel Production of Settlement Agreement with HTC filed byApple Inc.. (Attachments: # (1) Declaration of Richard Hung, # (2) Exhibit 1)(Jacobs, Michael) (Filed on 11/20/2012)

2152 - Filed & Entered: 11/21/2012
ORDER SETTING HEARING AT NOON TODAY. After reviewing both pending motions and the responses filed yesterday evening, and in the interest of providing a prompt decision on the underlying disputes, the court believes that a brief oral argument today at noon would benefit all concerned. In light of the limited notice provided, the court will permit counsel's participation by telephone. Any counsel intending to participate by phone should coordinate arrangements with Mr. Rivera, courtroom deputy to the undersigned. re [2141] Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Motion to Compel Depositions of Apple Reply Expert Declarants filed by Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC, Samsung Electronics America, Inc., [2144] MOTION to Compel Production of Settlement Agreement with HTC filed by Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC, Samsung Electronics America, Inc.. Signed by Judge Paul S. Grewal on 11/21/12. (Grewal, Paul) (Filed on 11/21/2012)

Update: And here's what happened later, the judge saying he's taken it under advisement and will issue a written order; also there are two new Quinn Emanuel lawyers joining the Samsung team, both of them attending the hearing, as you can see by the minutes from the day:

2153 - Filed & Entered: 11/21/2012
CLERK'S NOTICE RE: TELEPHONIC APPEARANCE FOR 11/21/12 MOTION HEARING: Counsel requesting to appear telephonically are instructed to contact CourtCall at 866-582-6878 to arrange for telephonic appearance. ***This is a text only docket entry, there is no document associated with this notice.*** (ofr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/21/2012)

2154 - Filed & Entered: 11/21/2012
NOTICE of Appearance Samsung Electronics America, Inc.(a New York corporation), Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC Notice of Appearance of Robert J. Becher (Maroulis, Victoria) (Filed on 11/21/2012)

2155 - Filed & Entered: 11/21/2012
NOTICE of Appearance Samsung Electronics America, Inc.(a New York corporation), Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC Notice of Appearance of Anthony P. Alden (Maroulis, Victoria) (Filed on 11/21/2012)

2156 - Filed & Entered: 11/21/2012
Minute Entry: Motion Hearing held on 11/21/2012 before Magistrate Judge Paul S. Grewal re [2141] MOTION to Compel Depositions of Apple Reply Expert Declarants filed by Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC, Samsung Electronics America, Inc., and [2144] MOTION to Compel Production of Settlement Agreement with HTC filed by Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC, Samsung Electronics America, Inc.: The Court takes matters under submission; written order after hearing to be issued. (Court Reporter FTR: (12:06 to 1:04.) (ofr, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 11/21/2012)

Obtained a ruling from the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, following a one week bench trial, that Rambus Inc. could not enforce twelve patents related to computer memory against Micron Technology, Inc. because it engaged in bad-faith spoliation of evidence.

Successfully defended MediaTek, Broadcom, NVIDIA and others in an ITC investigation brought by Rambus regarding memory controllers.