I/P Engine, Inc. v. AOL, Inc. et al

Filing 1025

MOTION to Seal I/P Engines Opening Brief on Post-Judgment Royalties and accompanying Declarations of Drs. Stephen Becker and Ophir Frieder by I/P Engine, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Sherwood, Jeffrey)

EXHIBIT 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
NORFOLK DIVISION
__________________________________________
)
I/P ENGINE, INC.,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
v.
)
)
AOL, INC. et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
__________________________________________)

Civ. Action No. 2:11-cv-512

[PROPOSED] AGREED ORDER
Before the Court is Plaintiff I/P Engine, Inc.’s (“I/P Engine”) Motion to Seal its Opening
Brief on Post-Judgment Royalties and accompanying Declarations of Drs. Stephen Becker and
Ophir Frieder (collectively “Opening Brief”). After considering the Motion to Seal, Order and
related filings, the Court is of the opinion that the Motion to Seal should be granted. It is
therefore ORDERED as follows:
1.

I/P Engine, Inc.’s Opening Brief on Post-Judgment Royalties.

2.

Declarations of Dr. Ophir Frieder.

3.

Declarations of Dr. Stephen Becker.

4.

There are three requirements for sealing court filings: (1) public notice with an

opportunity to object; (2) consideration of less drastic alternatives; and (3) a statement of specific
findings in support of a decision to seal and rejecting alternatives to sealing. See, e.g., Flexible
Benefits Council v. Feldman, No. 1:08-CV-371, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 93039 (E.D. Va. Nov.
13, 2008) (citing Ashcroft v. Conoco, Inc., 218 F.3d 282, 288 (4th Cir. 2000)). This Court finds

DSMDB-3209127

that I/P Engine, Inc.’s Opening Brief may contain data that is confidential under the Protective
Order entered in this matter on January 23, 2012; that public notice has been given, that no
objections have been filed; that the public’s interest in access is outweighed by the interests in
preserving such confidentiality; and that there are no alternatives that appropriately serve these
interests.
3.

For the sake of consistency with practices governing the case as a whole, I/P

Engine, Inc.’s Opening Brief shall remain sealed and be treated in accordance with the terms and
conditions of the Protective Order.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Seal is granted and I/P Engine is
permitted to file under seal its Opening Brief. The Court shall retain sealed materials until fortyfive (45) days after entry of a final order. If the case is not appealed, any sealed materials should
then be returned to counsel for the filing party.

Dated: October ___, 2013

Entered:

____/____/____

__________________________
United States District Court
Eastern District of Virginia

2
DSMDB-3209127