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)

Download PDF
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

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?