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

Filing 1049

MOTION to Seal Opposition to Defendants Opening Brief on Issues in the Courts August 14 Order and the Rebuttal Declaration of Dr. Ophir Frieder, Ph.D. in support of its Opposition 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 Opposition to Defendants’ Opening Brief on Issues in the Court’s August 14 Order and the Rebuttal Declaration of Dr. Ophir Frieder, Ph.D. in support of its Opposition (collectively, “Opposition”). 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. Opposition. 2. 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 that I/P Engine’s Opposition 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 DSMDB-3212382 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’s Opposition 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 Opposition. The Court shall retain sealed materials until forty-five (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: November____, 2013 Entered: ____/____/____ __________________________ United States District Court Eastern District of Virginia 2 DSMDB-3212382

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?