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

Filing 339

Memorandum in Support re 338 MOTION to Seal the Memorandum in Support of Plaintiff I/P Engine, Inc.'s Motion to Exclude Opinions and Testimony of Keith R. Ugone along with Exhibits 1 and 2 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 of Plaintiff I/P Engine, Inc.'s Motion to Exclude Opinions and
Testimony of Keith R. Ugone along with Exhibits 1 and 2. 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 Motion to Exclude

Opinions and Testimony of Keith R. Ugone along with Exhibits 1 and 2
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-3100042

that the Memorandum along with Exhibits 1 and 2 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 and Exhibits 1 and 2 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 its Memorandum in Support of Plaintiff I/P Engine, Inc.'s Motion to
Exclude Opinions and Testimony of Keith R. Ugone along with Exhibits 1 and 2. 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