Down below I recounted how Samsung executives had allegedly received and used outside-counsel-eyes-only documents relating to licensing terms between Apple and Noka. Today, Apple and Nokia submitted proposed orders on how much and how to sanction Samsung and QE. An article containing links to the court papers is here.
It is interesting to me that QE continues to represent Samsung in the case; I wonder if the firm's and client's interests may be at odds, or QE might be materially limited in its ability to represent Samsung.
I can’t tell enough from the redacted materials to agree, but I think you’re close. BUT I wouldn’t so readily excuse the “negligence” (if that’s what it was) of QE. The problem of too lightly letting even negligence go is that all a litigant has to rely on when disclosing key information is the promise of the other side; when that promise is breached, the system suffers mightily.
I just don’t know enough from here to fully form an opinion!
It appears to me that the lawfirm’s initial disclosure was inadvertent — contained in insufficiently redacted draft briefs.
Regarding self reporting, I am not sure how the firm can self report something they themselves are unaware of. Their advice to Samsung on this issue is and was privileged. They should not be forced to disclose information that their client tells them not to disclose. However, Samsung’s request that they not disclose violations should be sanctioned.
Samsung’s may not have been initially aware that the draft briefs contained attorney eyes only info. But at some point, they were informed, and did not report the problem and continued to use it to the disadvantage of Apple and Nokia.
If I were the Judge, I would have the firm pay a small fine for its negligence. I would have Samsung pay a larger fine for its intentional misuse. And, I would implement the bars requested by Apple.
Comments are closed.