Rosetta Stone LTD v. Google Inc.
Filing
132
Joint MOTION to Seal by Google Inc., Rosetta Stone LTD. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Allen, Warren)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
ALEXANDRIA DIVISION
____________________________________
ROSETTA STONE LTD.,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
GOOGLE INC.,
)
)
Defendant.
)
____________________________________)
Case No. 1:09-cv-00736 (GBL/TCB)
PROPOSED ORDER GRANTING JOINT MOTION TO SEAL
Upon consideration of Rosetta Stone Ltd.’s (“Rosetta Stone”) and Google Inc.’s
(“Google”) Joint Motion to Seal the following documents:
Rosetta Stone’s Memorandum of Law in Support of its Motion for Partial
Summary Judgment as to Liability;
Declarations of Jennifer L. Spaziano, Eric Eichmann, Van Leigh and Jason
Calhoun in Support Thereof;
Google’s and Rosetta Stone’s respective responsive and rebuttal briefs to
Rosetta Stone’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment as to Liability, and
any declarations in support of those responsive or rebuttal briefs;
Google’s Memorandum of Law in Support of its Motion for Summary
Judgment;
Declarations of Margret M. Caruso, Edward A. Blair, Bill Lloyd and Cory
Louie in Support Thereof;
Rosetta Stone’s and Google’s respective responsive and rebuttal briefs to
Google’s Motion for Summary Judgment, and any declarations in support
of those responsive or rebuttal briefs;
Google’s Memorandum of Law in Support of its Motion to Exclude the
Expert Report of Kent D. Van Liere, Ph.D.;
Declaration of Cheryl A. Galvin in Support Thereof; and
Rosetta Stone’s and Google’s respective responsive and rebuttal briefs to
Google’s Motion to Exclude the Expert Report of Kent D. Van Liere,
Ph.D, and any declarations in support of those responsive or rebuttal briefs
(hereinafter the “Joint Motion”) and good cause appearing therefor, it is hereby ORDERED that
the Joint Motion is GRANTED:
1.
The filings identified above reference documents, testimony, and
information that relate to business practices and internal communications that are confidential
and proprietary, the public disclosure of which would be harmful to Rosetta Stone’s and/or
Google’s business interests.
2.
Reasonable public notice of the sealing of these documents has been given
through the filings in this case.
3.
No less restrictive method would adequately preserve the confidential and
proprietary nature of the information at issue.
Dated: April __, 2010
______________________________
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?