[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