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)
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?