I/P Engine, Inc. v. AOL, Inc. et al
ORDER granting 1045 Motion to Seal. Signed by District Judge Raymond A. Jackson on 12/23/13, Nunc Pro Tunc November 11, 2013. (tbro)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
CLEHK, HS-l •—' I COURT
I/P ENGINE, INC.
Civil Action No. 2:ll-cv-512
AOL INC., et aU
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 oi' the
opinion that the Motion to Seal should be granted. It is therefore ORDERED as follows:
Defendants have asked to file under seal Portions of Defendants' Responsive
Brief on Issues Raised in the Court's August 14 Order ("Portions of Defendants' Responsive
Brief) as they contain data that is confidential under the Protective Order entered in this matter
on January 23, 2012 (Doc. No. 85) ("Protective Order").
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. Feltman, 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)).
This Court finds that Portions of Defendants' Responsive Brief 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.
Specifically, the Court finds the following reasons for sealing the requested
pleadings: Portions of Defendants' Responsive Brief 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.
In camera copies of Portions of Defendants' Responsive Brief 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.
For the sake of consistency with practices governing the case as a whole, Portions
of Defendants' Responsive Brief shall remain sealed and be treated in accordance with the terms
and conditions of the Protective Order.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Portions of Defendants' Responsive Brief 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: ->> /^ / ^3/ / 3
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?