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

Filing 142

MOTION to Seal Portions of Google Inc.'s Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Production of Custodial Documents; Portions of the Declaration of Kristin Zmrhal in Support of Google Inc.'s Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Production of Custodial Documents; and Exhibits H, O, Q, R, S and U to the Declaration of Emily C. O'Brien in Support of Opposition by Google Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Noona, Stephen)

Exhibit 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
NORFOLK DIVISION

I/P ENGINE, INC.
Plaintiff,
v.

Civil Action No. 2:11-cv-512

AOL, INC., et al.,
Defendants.

PROPOSED ORDER
Before the Court is the Motion to Seal filed by Google Inc. (“Google’s Motion to Seal”)
(1) Portions of Google Inc.’s Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Production of Custodial
Documents (“Portions of Google’s Opposition”); (2) Portions of the Declaration of Kristin
Zmrhal in Support of Google Inc.’s Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Production of
Custodial Documents (“Portions of the Zmrhal Declaration”); and (3) Exhibits H, O, Q, R, S and
U to the Declaration of Emily C. O’Brien in Support of Google Inc.’s Opposition to Plaintiff’s
Motion to Compel Production of Custodial Documents (“Certain Exhibits to the O’Brien
Declaration”). 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 Portions of Google’s Opposition,

Portions of the Zmrhal Declaration and Certain Exhibits to the O’Brien Declaration as set forth
in their motion.
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 Portions of Google’s Opposition, Portions of the Zmrhal Declaration and Certain Exhibits to
the O’Brien Declaration 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.
3.

For the sake of consistency with practices governing the case as a whole, Portions

of Google’s Opposition, Portions of the Zmrhal Declaration and Certain Exhibits to the O’Brien
Declaration shall remain sealed and be treated in accordance with the terms and conditions of the
Protective Order.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Google’s Motion to Seal is granted and Google is
permitted to file under seal Portions of Google’s Opposition, Portions of the Zmrhal Declaration
and Certain Exhibits to the O’Brien Declaration. 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: April ____, 2012

Entered:

_____/_____/_____

______________________________
United States District Court
Eastern District of Virginia

2

WE ASK FOR THIS:

Stephen E. Noona
Virginia State Bar No. 25367
KAUFMAN & CANOLES, P.C.
150 West Main Street, Suite 2100
Norfolk, VA 23510
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
[e-mail]
David Bilsker
David A. Perlson
QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART &
SULLIVAN, LLP
50 California Street, 22nd Floor
San Francisco, California 94111
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
Attorneys for Defendant Google Inc.

3

SEEN:

Donald C. Schultz
W. Ryan Snow
Steven Stancliff
CRENSHAW, WARE & MARTIN, P.L.C.
150 West Main Street, Suite 1500
Norfolk, VA 23510
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
Jeffrey K. Sherwood
Kenneth W. Brothers
DICKSTEIN SHAPIRO LLP
1825 Eye Street NW
Washington, DC 20006
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
Counsel for Plaintiff, I/P Engine, Inc.

4

SEEN AND AGREED:

Stephen E. Noona
Virginia State Bar No. 25367
KAUFMAN & CANOLES, P.C.
150 West Main Street, Suite 2100
Norfolk, VA 23510
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
[e-mail]
Attorneys for Google Inc., Target Corporation,
IAC Search & Media, Inc., AOL Inc, and Gannet Co., Inc.
11659947_1.DOC

5