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

Filing 426

Memorandum in Support re 425 MOTION to Seal its Opposition to Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment along with Exhibits 8, 11-19, 22-24, 27-32, 34-39, 45, 53-54, 56 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
Opposition to Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment along with Exhibits 8, 11-19, 22-24,
27-32, 34-39, 45, 53-54, 56. 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.

Opposition to Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment along with Exhibits 8,

11-19, 22-24, 27-32, 34-39, 45, 53-54, 56
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 Opposition to Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment along with Exhibits 8, 11-19,
22-24, 27-32, 34-39, 45, 53-54, 56 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

Opposition to Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment along with Exhibits 8, 11-19, 22-24,
27-32, 34-39, 45, 53-54, 56 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 Opposition to Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment along
with Exhibits 8, 11-19, 22-24, 27-32, 34-39, 45, 53-54, 56. 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