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

Filing 442

Memorandum in Support re 441 MOTION to Seal Plaintiff I/P Engine, Inc.'s Opposition to Defendants' Motion in Limine #2 along with Exhibits 1 and 2 filed by I/P Engine, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Sherwood, Jeffrey)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
NORFOLK DIVISION
__________________________________________
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
v.
)
)
AOL, INC. et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
__________________________________________)
I/P ENGINE, INC.,

Civ. Action No. 2:11-cv-512

MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO SEAL I/P ENGINE’S OPPOSITION
TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION IN LIMINE #2 ALONG WITH EXHIBITS 1 AND 2
In support of its Motion to Seal pursuant to Local Rule 5, Plaintiff I/P Engine, Inc. (“I/P
Engine”) states the following:
1.

I/P Engine moves the Court for leave to file under seal its Opposition to

Defendants’ Motion in Limine #2 along with Exhibits 1 and 2. The afore-mentioned contain
information that is marked as confidential by Defendants under the Protective Order entered in
this matter on January 23, 2012 (D.I. No. 85) (“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 Ashcroft v. Conoco, Inc., 218 F.3d 282, 288 (4th Cir. 2000)). I/P Engine’s
Opposition to Defendants’ Motion in Limine #2 along with Exhibits 1 and 2 contains
information that is marked by Defendants as confidential. An in camera copy of the afore-

DSMDB-3102092

mentioned is being provided to the Court. In light of Defendant’s representation that this is
confidential material under the Protective Order, there appears to be no alternative that
appropriately serves Defendants’ confidentiality concerns.
3.

The information contained in the Opposition and Exhibits 1 and 2 contains

Google’s proprietary and confidential information.
4.

For the sake of consistency with practices governing the case as a whole, I/P

Engine believes its Opposition and Exhibits 1 and 2 should remain sealed and be treated in
accordance with the terms and conditions of the Protective Order.
5.

Accordingly, and in satisfaction of the requirements of Local Rule 5, I/P Engine

respectfully asks the Court to enter the Proposed Agreed Order sealing its Opposition to
Defendants’ Motion in Limine #2 along with Exhibits 1 and 2.

Dated: September 27, 2012

By: /s/ Jeffrey K. Sherwood
Donald C. Schultz (Virginia Bar No. 30531)
W. Ryan Snow (Virginia Bar No. 47423)
CRENSHAW, WARE & MARTIN PLC
150 West Main Street
Norfolk, VA 23510
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Jeffrey K. Sherwood (Virginia Bar No. 19222)
Frank C. Cimino, Jr.
Kenneth W. Brothers
DeAnna Allen
Charles J. Monterio, Jr.
DICKSTEIN SHAPIRO LLP
1825 Eye Street, NW
Washington, DC 20006
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Counsel for Plaintiff I/P Engine, Inc.
2
DSMDB-3102092

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on this 27th day of September, 2012, the foregoing
MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO SEAL I/P ENGINE’S OPPOSITION
TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION IN LIMINE #2 ALONG WITH EXHIBITS 1 AND 2, was
served via the Court’s CM/ECF system, on the following:
Stephen Edward Noona
Kaufman & Canoles, P.C.
150 W Main St
Suite 2100
Norfolk, VA 23510
[e-mail]
David Bilsker
David Perlson
Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP
50 California Street, 22nd Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
Robert L. Burns
Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP
Two Freedom Square
11955 Freedom Drive
Reston, VA 20190
[e-mail]
Cortney S. Alexander
Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP
3500 SunTrust Plaza
303 Peachtree Street, NE
Atlanta, GA 94111
[e-mail]
/s/ Jeffrey K. Sherwood

3
DSMDB-3102092