I/P Engine, Inc. v. AOL, Inc. et al
Filing
1026
Memorandum in Support re 1025 MOTION to Seal I/P Engines Opening Brief on Post-Judgment Royalties and accompanying Declarations of Drs. Stephen Becker and Ophir Frieder filed by I/P Engine, Inc.. (Sherwood, Jeffrey)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
NORFOLK DIVISION
__________________________________________
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
v.
)
)
AOL, INC. et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
__________________________________________)
I/P ENGINE, INC.,
Civ. Action No. 2:11-cv-512
MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO SEAL I/P ENGINE, INC.’S
OPENING BRIEF ON POST-JUDGMENT ROYALTIES AND ACCOMPANYING
DECLARATIONS OF DRS. STEPHEN BECKER AND OPHIR FRIEDER
In support of its Motion to Seal pursuant to Local Rule 5, Plaintiff I/P Engine, Inc. (“I/P
Engine”) states the following:
1.
I/P Engine moves the Court for leave to file under seal its Opening Brief on Post-
Judgment Royalties and accompanying Declarations of Drs. Stephen Becker and Ophir Frieder
(collectively “Opening Brief”). The afore-mentioned contains information that is marked as
confidential by Defendants under the Protective Order entered in this matter on January 23, 2012
(D.I. No. 85) (“Protective Order”).
2.
There are three requirements for sealing court findings: (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)). I/P Engine, Inc.’s
Opening Brief contains information that is marked by Defendants as confidential. An in camera
DSMDB-3208451
copy of the afore-mentioned is being provided to the Court. In light of Defendant’s
representation that this is confidential material under the Protective Order, there appears to be no
alternative that appropriately serves Defendants’ confidentiality concerns.
3.
The information contained in the Opening Brief contains Google’s proprietary
and confidential information.
4.
For the sake of consistency with practices governing the case as a whole, I/P
Engine believes its Opening Brief should remain sealed and be treated in accordance with the
terms and conditions of the Protective Order.
5.
Accordingly, and in satisfaction of the requirements of Local Rule 5, I/P Engine
respectfully asks the Court to enter the Proposed Agreed Order sealing its Opening Brief.
Dated: October 30, 2013
By: /s/ Jeffrey K. Sherwood
Donald C. Schultz (Virginia Bar No. 30531)
W. Ryan Snow (Virginia Bar No. 47423)
CRENSHAW, WARE & MARTIN PLC
150 West Main Street
Norfolk, VA 23510
Telephone: (757) 623-3000
Facsimile: (757) 623-5735
Jeffrey K. Sherwood (Virginia Bar No. 19222)
Frank C. Cimino, Jr.
Kenneth W. Brothers
Charles J. Monterio, Jr.
DICKSTEIN SHAPIRO LLP
1825 Eye Street, NW
Washington, DC 20006
Telephone: (202) 420-2200
Facsimile: (202) 420-2201
Counsel for Plaintiff I/P Engine, Inc.
2
DSMDB-3208451
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on this 30th day of October, 2013, the foregoing was served via the
Court’s CM/ECF system, on the following:
Stephen Edward Noona
Kaufman & Canoles, P.C.
150 W Main St
Suite 2100
Norfolk, VA 23510
senoona@kaufcan.com
David Bilsker
David Perlson
Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP
50 California Street, 22nd Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111
davidbilsker@quinnemanuel.com
davidperlson@quinnemanuel.com
Robert L. Burns
Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP
Two Freedom Square
11955 Freedom Drive
Reston, VA 20190
robert.burns@finnegan.com
Cortney S. Alexander
Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP
3500 SunTrust Plaza
303 Peachtree Street, NE
Atlanta, GA 94111
cortney.alexander@finnegan.com
/s/ Jeffrey K. Sherwood
3
DSMDB-3208451
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?