I/P Engine, Inc. v. AOL, Inc. et al
Filing
356
Memorandum in Support re 355 MOTION to Seal Exhibit 1 to its Memorandum in Support of Plaintiff I/P Engines Daubert Motion, and Fourth Motion in Limine, to Exclude Lyle Ungars New Theory of Invalidity and Opinions Regarding Claim Construction 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 1 to
its Memorandum in Support of Plaintiff I/P Engine’s Daubert Motion, and Fourth Motion in
Limine, to Exclude Lyle Ungar’s New Theory of Invalidity and Opinions Regarding Claim
Construction. 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 1 to its Memorandum in Support of Plaintiff I/P Engine’s Daubert
Motion, and Fourth Motion in Limine, to Exclude Lyle Ungar’s New Theory of Invalidity and
Opinions Regarding Claim Construction
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 Exhibit 1 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, Exhibit
1 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 Exhibit 1 to its Memorandum in Support of Plaintiff I/P Engine’s
Daubert Motion, and Fourth Motion in Limine, to Exclude Lyle Ungar’s New Theory of
Invalidity and Opinions Regarding Claim Construction. 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?