I/P Engine, Inc. v. AOL, Inc. et al
Filing
430
Memorandum in Support re 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 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 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 filed by AOL Inc., Gannett Company, Inc., Google Inc., IAC Search & Media, Inc., Target Corporation. (Noona, Stephen)
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.
MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF 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
In support of their Motion to Seal pursuant to Local Rule 5, and the Protective Order
[Dkt. No. 85] entered in this matter, Defendants Google Inc., Target Corporation, IAC Search &
Media, Inc., Gannett Co., Inc. and AOL Inc. (collectively “Defendants”) state the following:
1.
Defendants have moved the court for leave to file under 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”). 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 contain data that is confidential under the Protective Order
entered in this matter on January 23, 2012 (“Protective Order”).
2.
There are three requirements for sealing court findings: (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)). Defendants
contend 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 contain data that is confidential under the Protective Order. Defendants
specifically state as reasons for sealing the requested pleadings that:
(a) Portions of Defendants' 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 I/P Engine'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
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.
2
Defendants have made all reasonable efforts to limit their redactions in compliance with the law
of this Circuit.
3.
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 are being provided to the Court for review. In
light of Defendants’ concerns and the Protective Order, there appears to be no alternative that
appropriately serves Defendants’ expressed confidentiality concerns.
4.
For the sake of consistency with practices governing the case as a whole,
Defendants believe 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 should remain sealed and be treated in accordance with the terms and
conditions of the Protective Order.
Accordingly, and in satisfaction of the requirements of Local Rule 5, Defendants
respectfully ask the Court to 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.
DATED: September 27, 2012
/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
3
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 Google Inc., Target Corporation,
IAC Search & Media, Inc., and Gannett Co., Inc.
By: /s/ Stephen E. Noona
Stephen E. Noona
Virginia State Bar No. 25367
KAUFMAN & CANOLES, P.C.
150 W. 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
Cortney 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.
4
5
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on September 27, 2012, I will electronically file the foregoing with
the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system, which will send a notification of such filing (NEF)
to the following:
Jeffrey K. Sherwood
Kenneth W. Brothers
DICKSTEIN SHAPIRO LLP
1825 Eye Street NW
Washington, DC 20006
Telephone: (202) 420-2200
Facsimile: (202) 420-2201
sherwoodj@dicksteinshapiro.com
brothersk@dicksteinshapiro.com
Donald C. Schultz
W. Ryan Snow
Steven Stancliff
CRENSHAW, WARE & MARTIN, P.L.C.
150 West Main Street, Suite 1500
Norfolk, VA 23510
Telephone: (757) 623-3000
Facsimile: (757) 623-5735
dschultz@cwm-law.cm
wrsnow@cwm-law.com
sstancliff@cwm-law.com
Counsel for Plaintiff, I/P Engine, 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
11948155v2
6
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?