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

Filing 429

MOTION to Seal (1) Portions of Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiff I/P Engine's First Motion in Limine to Exclude Inadmissible Evidence; (2) Portions of Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiff I/P Engine's Second Motion in Limine to Preclude License Agreements, and (3) Exhibits E and K to the Declaration of Margaret P. Kammerud in Support of Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiff's Motions in Limine 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”) (1) Portions of Defendants’ Opposition to
Plaintiff I/P Engine’s First Motion in Limine to Exclude Inadmissible Evidence (“Portions of
Defendants’ Opposition to Plaintiff’s First Motion in Limine”); (2) Portions of Defendants’
Opposition to Plaintiff I/P Engine’s Second Motion in Limine to Preclude License Agreements
(“Portions of Defendants’ Opposition to Plaintiff’s Second Motion in Limine”); and (3) Exhibits
E and K to the Declaration of Margaret P. Kammerud in Support of Defendants’ Opposition to
Plaintiff’s Motions in Limine (“Exhibits E and K to the Kammerud Declaration”).

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.

Defendants have asked to file under seal Portions of Defendants’ Opposition to

Plaintiff’s First Motion in Limine, Portions of Defendants’ Opposition to Plaintiff’s Second

Motion in Limine, Exhibits E and K to the Kammerud 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 Ashcraft v. Conoco, Inc., 218 F.3d 282, 288 (4th Cir. 2000)).
3.

This Court finds that Portions of Defendants’ Opposition to Plaintiff’s First

Motion in Limine, Portions of Defendants’ Opposition to Plaintiff’s Second Motion in Limine,
Exhibits E and K to the Kammerud Declaration may contain data that is confidential under the
Protective Order; 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.

Specifically, the Court finds the following reasons for sealing the requested

pleadings:
(a) Portions of Defendants’ Memorandum in Support of Their Opposition to
Plaintiff I/P Engine’s First Motion in Limine to Exclude Inadmissible Evidence
contains confidential Google financial information and Plaintiff and third party
confidential licensing information that is not generally known, that has economic
value, and would cause competitive harm if made public;
(b) Portions of Defendants’ Opposition to Plaintiff’s Second Motion in Limine to
Preclude License Agreements contains confidential Google licensing information
and confidential third party licensing information that is not generally known, that
has economic value and would cause competitive harm if made public;
(c) Exhibit E to Margaret P. Kammerud’s Declaration in Support of Defendants’
Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motions in Limine contains confidential Google

2

financial and licensing information which is not generally known, that has
economic value and would cause competitive harm if made public; and
(d) Portions of Exhibit K to Margaret P. Kammerud’s Declaration in Support of
Defendants’ Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motions in Limine contains confidential
Google technical information which is not generally known, that has economic
value and would cause competitive harm if made public.
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.

In camera copies of Portions of Defendants’ Opposition to Plaintiff’s First

Motion in Limine, Portions of Defendants’ Opposition to Plaintiff’s Second Motion in Limine,
Exhibits E and K to the Kammerud Declaration have 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.
6.

For the sake of consistency with practices governing the case as a whole, Portions

of Defendants’ Opposition to Plaintiff’s First Motion in Limine, Portions of Defendants’
Opposition to Plaintiff’s Second Motion in Limine,

Exhibits E and K to the Kammerud

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 Defendants’ Opposition to Plaintiff’s First Motion in
Limine, Portions of Defendants’ Opposition to Plaintiff’s Second Motion in Limine, Exhibits E
and K to the Kammerud 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.

3

Dated: September ____, 2012

Entered:

_____/_____/_____

______________________________
United States District Court
Eastern District of Virginia

4

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: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
[e-mail]
David Bilsker
David A. Perlson
QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART &
SULLIVAN, LLP
50 California Street, 22nd Floor
San Francisco, California 94111
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
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: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
[e-mail]
Robert L. Burns
FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW,
GARRETT & DUNNER, LLP
Two Freedom Square
11955 Freedom Drive
Reston, VA 20190
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

5

Courtney S. Alexander
FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW,
GARRETT & DUNNER, LLP
3500 SunTrust Plaza
303 Peachtree Street, NE
Atlanta, GA 94111
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Counsel for Defendant AOL Inc.

11948710v1

11948710v1

6