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

Filing 226

MOTION to Seal Portions of Google Inc.'s Reply Brief in Support of Google's Motion to Compel Plaintiff to Produce Documents by Google Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Noona, Stephen)

Exhibit 1

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 Defendant Google Inc. (“Google’s Motion
to Seal”) Portions of Google Inc.’s Reply Brief in Support of Google’s Motion to Compel
Plaintiff to Produce Documents (“Google’s Reply Brief”). 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.

Google has asked to file under seal Google’s Reply Brief.

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 Google’s Reply Brief 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,

Google’s Reply Brief 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 Google’s Reply Brief. 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: September ____, 2012

Entered:

_____/_____/_____

______________________________
United States District Court
Eastern District of Virginia

2

WE ASK FOR THIS:

/s/Stephen E. Noona
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]
Counsel for Defendant Google Inc.

3

SEEN AND AGREED:

/s/ Donald C. Schultz
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:

/s/ Stephen E. Noona
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]
Counsel for Google Inc.,
Target Corporation,
IAC Search & Media, Inc., AOL Inc. and
Gannet Co., Inc.
Robert L. Burns
FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW,
GARRETT & DUNNER, LLP
Two Freedom Square
11955 Freedom Drive
Reston, VA 20190
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Courtney S. Alexander
FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW,
GARRETT & DUNNER, LLP
3500 SunTrust Plaza
303 Peachtree Street, NE
Atlanta, GA 94111
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Counsel for Defendant AOL Inc.

11909330v1

5