I/P Engine, Inc. v. AOL, Inc. et al
Filing
343
MOTION to Seal Portions of the Declaration of Michael Hochberg in Support of Plaintiff's and Defendants' Motions to Seal by AOL Inc., Gannett Company, Inc., Google Inc., IAC Search & Media, Inc., Target Corporation. (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 Defendants Google Inc., Target
Corporation, IAC Search & Media, Inc., Gannett Co., Inc. and AOL Inc. (collectively
“Defendants”) (“Defendants’ Motion to Seal”) Portions of the Declaration of Michael Hochberg
in Support of Plaintiff’s and Defendants’ Motions to Seal (“Portions of the Hochberg
Declaration”). After considering the Motion to Seal, Order and related filings, the Court is of the
opinion that Defendants’ Motion to Seal should be granted. It is therefore ORDERED as
follows:
1.
Defendants have asked to file under seal Portions of the Hochberg Declaration as
they contain data that is confidential under the Protective Order entered in this matter on January
23, 2012 (Dkt. No. 85) (“Protective Order”).
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)).
3.
This Court finds that Portions of the Hochberg Declaration 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.
4.
pleadings:
Specifically, the Court finds the following reasons for sealing the requested
The Hochberg Declaration contains a detailed description of the confidential
technical details of how the accused systems work, and in particular how Google determines
which advertisements to serve. This information and related documents contain extraordinarily
sensitive and valuable information regarding Google's products and the confidential manner in
which they work, the public disclosure of which would cause Google economic and competitive
harm and could hurt Google's customers by increasing the rankings of lower quality
advertisements. A lack of Court protection of the aforementioned information would cause
Google severe economic harm because the information could be used by Google's competitors to
attempt to mimic Google's unique, successful, and, thus far, confidential details of its advertising
system.
Additionally, the Court finds that the Defendants have made all reasonable efforts to limit
their redactions in compliance with the law of this Circuit.
5.
An in camera copy of the Hochberg Declaration has been reviewed by the Court.
In light of Defendants’ concerns and the Protective Order, there appears to be no alternative that
appropriately serves Defendants’ expressed confidentiality concerns.
2
6.
For the sake of consistency with practices governing the case as a whole, Portions
of the Hochberg Declaration shall remain sealed and be treated in accordance with the terms and
conditions of the Protective Order.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Seal is granted and Defendants
are permitted to file under seal Portions of the Hochberg Declaration. 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
3
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: (757) 624.3000
Facsimile: (757) 624.3169
senoona@kaufcan.com
David Bilsker
David A. Perlson
QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART &
SULLIVAN, LLP
50 California Street, 22nd Floor
San Francisco, California 94111
Telephone: (415) 875-6600
Facsimile: (415) 875-6700
davidbilsker@quinnemanuel.com
davidperlson@quinnemanuel.com
Counsel for Defendants Google Inc.,
Target Corporation, IAC Search &
Media, Inc., and Gannett Co., Inc.
/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: (757) 624-3000
Facsimile: (757) 624-3169
senoona@kaufcan.com
Robert L. Burns
FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW,
GARRETT & DUNNER, LLP
Two Freedom Square
11955 Freedom Drive
Reston, VA 20190
Telephone: (571) 203-2700
Facsimile: (202) 408-4400
4
Courtney S. Alexander
FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW,
GARRETT & DUNNER, LLP
3500 SunTrust Plaza
303 Peachtree Street, NE
Atlanta, GA 94111
Telephone: (404) 653-6400
Facsimile: (415) 653-6444
Counsel for Defendant AOL Inc.
11942461v1
5
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?