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

Filing 1073

ORDER granting 995 Motion to Seal. Signed by District Judge Raymond A. Jackson on 12/23/13, Nunc Pro Tunc October 4, 2013. (tbro)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA NORFOLK DIVISION I/P ENGINE, INC., Plaintiff, Civ. Action No. 2:ll-cv-512 v. AOL, INC. et al., Defendants. AGREED ORDER Before the Court is Plaintiff I/P Engine, Inc.'s ("I/P Engine") Motion to Seal its Supplemental Memorandum Setting Forth Additional New Facts Justifying Its Request For Default Judgment In I/P Engine's Motion For Defendants To Show Cause Under Rule 37 For Noncompliance with the August 13, 2013 Order Along with Exhibits A and C and the Declaration of Charles J. Monterio, Jr. in Support of I/P Engine's Supplemental Memorandum ol Additional Facts. 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. Supplemental Memorandum Setting Forth Additional New Facts Justifying Its Request For Default Judgment In I/P Engine's Motion For Defendants To Show Cause Under Rule 37 For Noncompliance with the August 13, 2013 Order Along with Exhibits A and C and the Declaration of Charles J. Monterio, Jr. in Support of I/P Engine's Supplemental Memorandum of Additional Facts. DSMDB-3202983 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 decisionto 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 Supplemental Memorandum Setting Forth Additional New Facts Justifying Its Request For Default Judgment In I/P Engine's Motion For Defendants To Show Cause Under Rule 37 For Noncompliance with the August 13, 2013 Order Along with Exhibits A and C and the Declaration of Charles J. Monterio, Jr. in Support of I/P Engine's Supplemental Memorandum of Additional Facts 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's Supplemental Memorandum Setting Forth Additional New Facts Justifying Its Request For Default Judgment In I/P Engine's Motion For Defendants To Show Cause Under Rule 37 For Noncompliance with the August 13, 2013 Order Along with Exhibits A and C and the Declaration of Charles J. Monterio, Jr. in Support of I/P Engine's Supplemental Memorandum of Additional Facts shall remain sealed and be treated in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Protective Order. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Plaintiffs Motion to Seal is granted and I/P Engine is permitted to file under seal its Supplemental Memorandum Setting Forth Additional New Facts DSMDB-3202983 Justifying Its Request For Default Judgment In I/P Engine's Motion For Defendants To Show Cause Under Rule 37 For Noncompliance with the August 13, 2013 Order Along with Exhibits A and C and the Declaration of Charles J. Monterio, Jr. in Support of I/P Engine's Supplemental Memorandum of Additional Facts. 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. /l/ctn /TO )ua^ Dated: October ^,2013 Entered: /Z-/^ //3 Raymond Unfitea^aM^BtHef^rt6 Eastern District of Virginia DSMDB-3202983

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?