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

Filing 1075

ORDER granting 1011 Motion to Seal. Signed by District Judge Raymond A. Jackson on 12/23/13, Nunc Pro Tunc October 28, 2013. (tbro)

JED

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
NORFOLK DIVISION

CLERK, U.S. niSTRM

1/P ENGINE, INC.,
Plaintiff,
Civ. Action No. 2:1 l-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 I/P
Engine, Inc.'s Reply in Support of Its Motion For Leave., 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. /

I/P Engine, Inc.'s Reply in Support of Its Motion For Leave.

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, Inc.'s Reply in Support of Its Motion For Leave 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

DSMDB-3208449

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, Inc.'s Reply in Support of Its Motion For Leave 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 I/P Engine, Inc.'s Reply in Support of Its Motion For Leave. 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: October^, 2013

Entered:

/2^_J^J_/3?

Raymond Arfackson

UnMt^^|jgt©ig^icCMge
Eastern District of Virginia

DSMDB-3208449