Quinn Firm Sanctioned, but not Samsung, for Disclosure of Apple Licensing Info

Earlier I wrote about Judge Grewal’s order concerning the disclosure of an unredacted expert report in the Apple v. Samsung suit. ¬†Yesterday, the judge held that Quinn should reimburse Apple for its expenses, and imposed some other remedies, but largely declined the sanctions sought by Apple. ¬†The order is here.

In my own view, the remedies might be right if all that had happened was a mistake, but, and as the judge wrote, what happened here was a mistake followed by what, in his view, was a failure to correct it.


About David

Professor of Law, Mercer University School of Law. Formerly Of Counsel, Taylor English Duma, LLP and in 2012-13, judicial clerk to Chief Judge Rader.

4 thoughts on “Quinn Firm Sanctioned, but not Samsung, for Disclosure of Apple Licensing Info

  1. 3

    The problem that remains, though is: because detection of a violation of a protective order is improbable, and when a violation occurs, very little happens, then people won’t take reasonable care to comply with protective orders…

  2. 2

    And, my guess is that there’s no claim for damages (if there are any) available.

    Probably no one is happy with the ruling!

  3. 1

    Yeah, I don’t get it either, David. The court acknowledges that an appropriate sanction includes both remedial (e.g., compensatory) and deterrent aspects. Here, the court’s sanction embarrasses Quinn, but does nothing to remediate the damage or compensate Nokia, which, by all accounts, was the injured party.

    1. 1.1

      That’s because there wasn’t really any “damage” to remediate or compensate. This was, in the end, a technical protective order violation that went uncorrected, and that caused no discernible damage.

      And the sanctions order was limited to the costs associated with bringing the motion itself. The judge figured that those costs, coupled with the public shaming of the order, was sufficient to deter this conduct in the future. One can debate that point, but no question that the sanctions requested by Apple were a breathtaking example of overreaching.

      The judge showed class, though, in not identifying by name any of the Quinn lawyers involved in this fiasco.

Comments are closed.