I/P Engine, Inc. v. AOL, Inc. et al
Filing
281
Memorandum in Support re 280 MOTION to Seal Plaintiff I/P Engine, Inc.'s Second Motion for Discovery Sanctions Regarding Untimely Discovery Responses along with Exhibits 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 13, and 14 in support filed by I/P Engine, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Sherwood, Jeffrey)
EXHIBIT 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
NORFOLK DIVISION
__________________________________________
)
I/P ENGINE, INC.,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
v.
)
)
AOL, INC. et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
__________________________________________)
Civ. Action No. 2:11-cv-512
[PROPOSED] AGREED ORDER
Before the Court is Plaintiff I/P Engine, Inc.’s (“I/P Engine”) Motion to Seal its
Memorandum in Support its Second Motion for Discovery Sanctions Regarding Untimely
Discovery Responses along with Exhibits 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 13 and 14 in support. 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.
Memorandum in Support of Plaintiff I/P Engine, Inc.'s Second Motion for
Discovery Sanctions Regarding Untimely Discovery Responses along with Exhibits 2, 4, 5, 7, 8,
9, 13 and 14 in support
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
DSMDB-3099625
that the Memorandum in Support of Plaintiff I/P Engine, Inc.'s Second Motion for Discovery
Sanctions Regarding Untimely Discovery Responses along with Exhibits 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 13 and
14 in support 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, the
Memorandum in Support of Plaintiff I/P Engine, Inc.'s Second Motion for Discovery Sanctions
Regarding Untimely Discovery Responses along with Exhibits 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 13 and 14 in
support shall remain sealed and be treated in accordance with the terms and conditions of the
Protective Order.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Seal is granted and I/P Engine is
permitted to file under seal its Memorandum in Support its Second Motion for Discovery
Sanctions Regarding Untimely Discovery Responses along with Exhibits 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 13 and
14 in support. 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
DSMDB-3099625
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?