I/P Engine, Inc. v. AOL, Inc. et al
ORDER granting 1029 Motion to Seal. Signed by District Judge Raymond A. Jackson on 12/23/13, Nunc Pro Tunc October 31, 2013. (tbro)
DEC 2 3 2013
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
CLERK, U S WSIHiOJ COURT
I/P ENGINE, INC.,
Civ. Action No. 2:11-cv-512
AOL. INC. et al..
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 and the Declaration of Charles J. Monterio. Jr.
in Support of I/P Engine's Supplemental Memorandum of Additional Facts (collectively,
'"Supplemental Memorandum"). 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
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 Supplemental Memorandum 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.
For the sake of consistency with practices governing the case as a whole, I/P
Engine's Supplemental Memorandum 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. 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:^j^^ 2^Z ,2013
Entered: /2- /<£$/ Q
Eastern District of Virginia
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?