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

Filing 154

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE granting in part and denying in part 92 Motion to Seal; directing the clerk to file Exhibits L, M, and N (ECF No. 98) under seal; directing the parties to SHOW CAUSE within seven days of date of this order why Exhibit P (ECF No. 98) and related portions of Google's Reply Brief (ECF No. 97) should not be unsealed and filed in the public record. If no response is filed within seven days of the date of this Order, the Court will issue further order unsealing Exhibit P and related portions of the Reply Brief. In the interim, the Clerk shall continue to maintain the unredacted version of Google's Reply Brief (ECF No. 97) and Exhibit P (ECF No. 98) under seal. Signed by Magistrate Judge F. Bradford Stillman and filed on 5/1/12. (mwin, )

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIJA. Norfolk Division I/P ENGINE, INC., Plaintiff, v. Case AOL, INC., et No.: 2:llcv512 al., Defendants. ORDER Before Reply in the Court Support Conception, of M, N, in Support Thereof is 2012, Its Motion Motion (ECF No. 92) In Court addition filings, the exhibits submitted for the Court has finds CAUSE to to and P to the by defendant Google unopposed. below, a SHOW Reduction-to-Practice, and Exhibits L, 5, is TO Seal Compel Inc. to and Priority Date Motion to in camera the filing under seal. for materials should not be unsealed and filed of Google's Motion to Seal SHOW CAUSE and reply some why certain Plaintiff brief and stated of the material Accordingly, of the specified in the public record. file under seal the Reply Brief Compel related DENY the motion in part, the asked to filed on March iri camera review. and ORDER Google has Provide Information, For the reasons sealing the Court will GRANT the motion in part, to to The Motion to Seal the the basis Google's Declaration of Margaret Kammerud ("Google") . reviewed of Plaintiff ("Motion to Seal"), is unclear based upon the Court's parties Portions to Provide in Support Conception, Reduction-to-Practice, and Exhibits L, in support certain M, N, thereof but No. 98) . contained "[w]hen court." 91, 94 Chemical (S.D.N.Y. Circuit (ECF No. 97) in parties these have materials material agreed should is that remain classified as their classification is not binding on Bank v. Affiliated FM Ins. Co., 154 F.R.D. 1994). In Ashcraft v. Fourth The discovery confidential by the parties, the Information and P to the Declaration of Margaret Kammerud (ECF information confidential, and Priority Date Conoco, set out Inc., 218 three F.3d 282 {4th Cir. requirements 2000), for sealing any the court court filings: [B]efore a documents, request to reasonable less seal factual court (1) and and may allow to interested object, alternatives (3) findings provide supporting documents seal give public notice of the opportunity drastic documents, the district it must and to parties (2) a consider sealing the specific reasons and its decision to seal for rejecting the alternatives. Id. at 288 178, 181 235-36 (citing Stone v. {4th Cir. (4th Cir. 1988), Univ. of Md. Med. and In re Knight Pub. 1984)). Local Civil Rule guidance to litigants with respect to motions The Court notes that, the Clerk has provided Corp., Co., 5 855 F.2d 743 F.2d 231, provides further to seal. in accordance with Local Civil Rule 5, public docketing the motion with a seal, Sys. notice of the Motion clear description of it as to Seal by a motion to and by docketing a separate Notice of Google's Motion to Seal - 2 - (ECF No. 94). "Even however, by good MEF, when no third the Court must cause." See in this good cause to Based submitted Namely, finds of P to the a graduate student detail, the Court appears to be confidential content of the disclosure sponsored by a the this parties or invention the Google Corp., No. 3:09-cv-694- 2010). The Court's support to establish 4, review Court for Kammerud form, of FINDS filing by which regarding Machine to supported the that under Declaration is certain seal to do of not information. a copy of Ken invention Learning" Having materials inventor an where he appears unable seal, is Oct. camera [U]sing to submitted materials. at the time. is motion the motion insufficient information Filtering a to contain any confidential Carnegie Mellon University, as Ala. iji Invention" certain IBM seal, by review, that v. of the under Exhibit ensure Univ. Court's submitted challenges (M.D. the upon close "Information *2 filing for disclosed at instance, on "Disclosure still seal certain materials appear, party Auburn 2010 WL 3927737, review, the No objection has been filed by any interested party. Lang styled officials at to have been enrolled reviewed the document identify a information that or otherwise worthy of protection. The form indicates any in that Lang's research was corporation with no readily apparent relationship to to was this litigation, scheduled to - be 3 - that the presented a research and paper published at on a July 1995 conference,1 that the research paper was previously made available have on the world-wide copies," and downloaded confidentiality concerning agreements this work." confidentiality,2 (e.g., has web and submitted "[t]here document from page 7 Based Exhibits L, Google's the parties' of the public on the lacks evidence of Court's M, and N Reply to version Court's the in no information any indicia of confidentiality consideration. version) 98), public of the at of the Twelfth NewsWeeder: these 6, the three the filings No. Court of the 95. (ECF No. FINDS (ECF No. is normally FINDS adequately that the apprise the See Google's The Court that sealed copy Exhibits Court sealed materials. ECF Court which are redacted information that Moreover, 1 The paper still appears Ken Lang, The 95). review, commercial public. P, and portions describing non-confidential, (public (ECF No. camera (ECF No. Brief public of the nature See the people been sealed copy of Google's Reply Brief contain confidential unavailable Br. "[m]any have itself describes and quotes portions of Exhibit 97), and regarding extrinsic for further notes that the of that 1995 a confidentiality agreement between Lang and the University) been 97) March made The no in further Reply FINDS to be available on the internet. Learning to Filter Netnews, Proceedings International Conference on Machine Learning (1995), available at http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1 .1.85.7365 (last accessed Apr. 30, 2012). 2 The Court acknowledges that the document appears to have been stamped "Confidential Outside Counsel Only" its production in discovery in this matter, of confidentiality predating its - but disclosure 4 - in in connection with it bears no this indicia litigation. that the public's parties' interest in access is outweighed interest in preserving confidentiality, here by the and there are no alternatives that appropriately serve these interests. Accordingly, part, and the 1. No. 98) 98) Court ORDERS the DENIED in following: The Clerk is DIRECTED to file Exhibits L, and N (ECF The parties are ORDERED to SHOW CAUSE why Exhibit P (ECF under 2. No. the Motion to Seal is GRANTED in part, M, seal. and related portions of Google's Reply Brief (ECF No. should not be unsealed and filed in the public record. may respond to this Order to Show Cause by any and all Any party filing response within seven days of the date of this Order, 97) a written setting forth reasons why these exhibits should be filed under seal rather than in the public record of this case. If no response is filed within seven days of the date of this Order, the Court will issue a further order unsealing Exhibit P and related portions of the Reply Brief. In the interim, the Clerk shall continue maintain the unredacted version of Google's Reply Brief 97) and Exhibit IT IS P (ECF No. 98) May \ (ECF No. under seal. SO ORDERED. UNITED Norfolk, to Virginia , 2012 - 5 - STATQS MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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?