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

Filing 1074

ORDER granting 1000 Motion to Seal. Signed by District Judge Raymond A. Jackson on 12/23/13, Nunc Pro Tunc October 21, 2013. (tbro)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA NORFOLK DIVISION I/P ENGINE, INC. Plaintiff, Civil Action No. 2:11 -cv-512 v. AOL INC., et al, Defendants. ORDER Before the Court is the Motion to Seal ("Defendants' Motion to Seal") filed by Defendants Google Inc., Target Corporation, IAC Search & Media, Inc., Gannett Co., Inc. and AOL Inc. (collectively "Defendants"). 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. Defendants have asked to file under seal (1) Portions of the Declaration of Kristin Zmrhal in Support of Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Memorandum Regarding Motion to Show Cause ("Portions of the Zmrhal Declaration"); (2) Portions of Exhibits 6-8 to the Declaration of Joshua L. Sohn in Support of Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Memorandum Regarding Motion to Show Cause and Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Supplemental Memorandum ("Portions of Exhibits 6-8 to the Sohn Declaration"); and (3) Exhibits 9-10 to the Declaration of Joshua L. Sohn in Support of Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Memorandum Regarding Motion to Show Cause and Motion to Strike Plaintiffs Supplemental Memorandum ("Exhibits 9-10 to the Sohn Declaration") as they contain data that is confidential under the Protective Order entered in this matter on January 23, 2012 (Doc. No. 85) ("Protective Order"). 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. L08-CV-371, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 93039 (E.D. Va. Nov. 13, 2008) (citing Ashcraft v. Conoco, Inc., 218 F.3d 282, 288 (4th Cir. 2000)). 3. This Court finds that Portions of the Zmrhal Declaration, Portions of Exhibits 6-8 to the Sohn Declaration and Exhibits 9-10 to the Sohn Declaration contain data that is confidential under the Protective Order; 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. 4. Specifically, the Court finds the following reasons for sealing the requested pleadings: Portions of the Zmrhal Declaration, Portions of Exhibits 6-8 to the Sohn Declaration and Exhibits 9-10 to the Sohn Declaration contain highly confidential business and trade secret information all of which is not generally known, has economic value, and the disclosure of which would cause competitive harm if made widely public. The Court also finds that by filing narrowly redacted public pleadings, the Defendants have made all reasonable efforts to limit their redactions in compliance with the law of this Circuit. 5. In camera copies of Portions of the Zmrhal Declaration, Portions of Exhibits 6-8 to the Sohn Declaration and Exhibits 9-10 to the Sohn Declaration have been reviewed by the Court. In light of Defendants' concerns and the Protective Order, there appears to be no alternative other than the narrowly redacted public pleadings that appropriately serves Defendants' expressed confidentiality concerns. 6. For the sake of consistency with practices governing the case as a whole, Portions of the Zmrhal Declaration, Portions of Exhibits 6-8 to the Sohn Declaration and Exhibits 9-10 to the Sohn Declaration shall remain sealed and be treated in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Protective Order. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Portions of the Zmrhal Declaration, Portions of Exhibits 6-8 to the Sohn Declaration and Exhibits 9-10 to the Sohn Declaration shall be filed under seal. The Court shall retain sealed materials until forty-five (45) days after entry of a final order after appeal. Entered: /^/^/_/> ^/0^Z^ Raymond A. ragKson Unit4fli8tat&iE&tDfctr&P!H&ae Eastern District of Virginia WE ASK FOR THIS: /s/Stephen E. Noona Stephen E. Noona Virginia State Bar No. 25367 Kaufman & Canoles, P.C. 150 West Main Street, Suite 2100 Norfolk, VA 23510 Telephone: (757) 624-3000 Facsimile: (757)624-3169 senoona@kaufcan.com David Bilsker David A. Perlson Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP 50 California Street, 22nd Floor San Francisco, California 94111 Telephone: (415) 875-6600 Facsimile: (415) 875-6700 davidbilsker@quinnemanuel.com davidperlson @quinnemanuel.com Counselfor Defendants Google Inc. Target Corporation, IAC Search & Media, Inc., and Gannett Co., Inc. /s/ Stephen E. Noona Stephen E. Noona Virginia State Bar No. 25367 Kaufman & Canoles, P.C. 150 West Main Street, Suite 2100 Norfolk, VA 23510 Telephone: (757) 624-3000 Facsimile: (757)624-3169 senoona@kaufcan.com Robert L. Burns Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP Two Freedom Square 11955 Freedom Drive Reston, VA 20190 Telephone: (571) 203-2700 Facsimile: (202) 408-4400 Courtney S. Alexander Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP 3500 SunTrust Plaza 303 Peachtree Street, NE Atlanta, GA 94111 Telephone: (404) 653-6400 Facsimile: (415) 653-6444 Counselfor Defendant AOL Inc. 12745855v1

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?