[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 169 (Wednesday, August 31, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 60021-60022]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-20869]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
[Investigation No. 337-TA-794]
Certain Electronic Devices, Including Wireless Communication
Devices, Portable Music and Data Processing Devices, and Tablet
Computers Sanction for Breaches of Administrative Protective Order
AGENCY: U.S. International Trade Commission.
ACTION: Sanction for breaches of Commission administrative protective
order.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade
Commission has imposed a sanction for the breach of the administrative
protective order (``APO'') issued in this investigation. The Commission
determined that the law firm of Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP
(``Quinn Emanuel'') breached the APO by failing to adequately control
access to confidential business information (``CBI'') in the
investigation and litigation in the U.S. District for the Northern
District of California. As a result, Quinn Emanuel attorneys and
employees of complainants Samsung Telecommunications America LLC and
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (collectively, ``Samsung'') improperly
disclosed CBI to more than 140 unauthorized persons over a fourteen-
month period. Quinn Emanuel is being publicly reprimanded for pervasive
problems at the firm in safeguarding CBI.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carol McCue Verratti, Esq., Office of
the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street
SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-3088. Hearing impaired
individuals are advised that information on this matter can be obtained
by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal at (202) 205-1810. General
information concerning the Commission can also be obtained by accessing
its Internet server (https://www.usitc.gov).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Several Quinn Emanuel attorneys
inadvertently disclosed CBI designated by respondent Apple Inc. as CBI
in the investigation and for cross-use in litigation in the U.S.
District for the Northern District of California to persons who were
not authorized to access CBI under the APO.
A junior associate at Quinn Emanuel failed to fully redact CBI from
an expert report prepared for the district court action, and a partner
at Quinn Emanuel failed to supervise the junior associate.
[[Page 60022]]
Quinn Emanuel attorneys subsequently sent the incompletely redacted
expert report to unauthorized persons at Samsung and other law and
consulting firms on several occasions. Some of the non-signatory
recipients further disseminated the CBI to other non-signatories,
including an Italian court. One of the incidents involved a partner at
Quinn Emanuel emailing more than 90 Samsung employees with instructions
on how to access the incompletely redacted expert report on an FTP
site. Another incident involved a second associate who failed to
safeguard CBI by improperly confirming the redactions. In another
incident, the same junior associate who made the original redactions
discovered that an incompletely redacted report had been inadvertently
disclosed to a Samsung employee and alerted the second associate and a
supervising partner. Although the Samsung employee deleted the report
without viewing the CBI, the second associate later sent a revised
version that still contained CBI. No one at Quinn Emanuel notified
Apple or the Commission of the disclosure at the time. No other efforts
were made to investigate whether other disclosures had been made so as
to prevent further disclosures. As a result, the unauthorized
disclosures continued.
In connection with the investigation before the Commission, a mid-
level associate at Quinn Emanuel failed to redact the same CBI from an
outline for a brief on remedy and the public interest. Quinn Emanuel
attorneys subsequently sent versions of the outline and the public
interest brief containing CBI to unauthorized persons at Samsung and
other law firms on several occasions. A partner at Quinn Emanuel
discovered one such disclosure, but did not notify Apple or the
Commission at the time because he had acted promptly after the
discovery to prevent unauthorized persons from viewing CBI.
A third party filed a motion for a protective order in the district
court action, alleging that Samsung had obtained CBI. Quinn Emanuel
notified the Commission of certain of the disclosures a month later,
and two weeks after it had notified the third party of the same
disclosures.
The Commission considered several aggravating factors, including
the viewing of CBI by unauthorized persons; the discovery of the
breaches by a third party; Quinn Emanuel's failure and delay in
reporting to the Commission the disclosures when they were discovered;
the lengthy period of time in which CBI was unprotected; multiple
breaches by Quinn Emanuel attorneys in the same investigation; and
multiple breaches by Quinn Emanuel attorneys in a two-year period. The
Commission also considered several mitigating factors, including the
inadvertent nature of the breaches; Quinn Emanuel's recent
implementation of a firm-wide policy to help prevent unauthorized
disclosures; Quinn Emanuel's prompt and strenuous efforts to
investigate, cure, and prevent further breaches; and the fact that a
federal district court has already sanctioned the disclosures and
conduct underlying the breaches relating to the expert report.
Although Quinn Emanuel had procedures to prevent unauthorized
disclosures, the firm did not ensure that attorneys complied with those
procedures and made unilateral decisions regarding the APO's scope and
requirements. The large number and the vast extent of the unauthorized
disclosures show that the failure to safeguard CBI was a pervasive
problem at Quinn Emanuel.
The authority for the Commission's determination is contained in
section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and
in Part 210 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR
part 210).
By order of the Commission.
Issued: August 25, 2016.
Lisa R. Barton,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2016-20869 Filed 8-30-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P