I/P Engine, Inc. v. AOL, Inc. et al
Filing
313
Memorandum in Support re 312 MOTION to Seal Exhibit 3 to the Memorandum in Support of Plaintiff I/P Engine's First Motion in Limine to Exclude Inadmissible Evidence 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 Exhibit 3 to
its Memorandum in Support of its First Motion in Limine to Exclude Inadmissible Evidence.
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.
Exhibit 3 to its Memorandum in Support of its First Motion in Limine to Exclude
Inadmissible Evidence
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 Exhibit 3 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;
DSMDB-3100042
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, Exhibit
3 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 Exhibit 3 to its Memorandum in Support of its First Motion in
Limine to Exclude Inadmissible Evidence. 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-3100042
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?