I/P Engine, Inc. v. AOL, Inc. et al
Filing
454
Memorandum in Support re 453 MOTION to Seal Plaintiff I/P Engine, Inc.'s Opposition to Defendants' Motion in Limine #5 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 DEFENDANT’S MOTION IN LIMINE #5 TO PRECLUDE PLAINTIFF FROM
INTRODUCING EVIDENCE OF DAMAGES AGAINST AOL INC., GANNETT CO.,
INC., IAC SEARCH & MEDIA, INC., AND TARGET CORPORATION 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
Defendant’s Motion in Limine #5 to Preclude Plaintiff from Introducing Evidence of Damages
Against AOL Inc., Gannett Co., Inc., IAC Search & Media, Inc., and Target Corporation 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
DSMDB-3102068
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 Defendant’s Motion in Limine #5 to Preclude Plaintiff from Introducing Evidence
of Damages Against AOL Inc., Gannett Co., Inc., IAC Search & Media, Inc., and Target
Corporation along with Exhibits 1 and 2 contains information that is marked by Defendants as
confidential. An in camera copy of the afore-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
Defendant’s Motion in Limine #5 to Preclude Plaintiff from Introducing Evidence of Damages
Against AOL Inc., Gannett Co., Inc., IAC Search & Media, Inc., and Target Corporation 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: (757) 623-3000
2
DSMDB-3102068
Facsimile: (757) 623-5735
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: (202) 420-2200
Facsimile: (202) 420-2201
Counsel for Plaintiff I/P Engine, Inc.
3
DSMDB-3102068
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 DEFENDANT’S MOTION IN LIMINE #5 TO PRECLUDE PLAINTIFF FROM
INTRODUCING EVIDENCE OF DAMAGES AGAINST AOL INC., GANNETT CO.,
INC., IAC SEARCH & MEDIA, INC., AND TARGET CORPORATION 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
senoona@kaufcan.com
David Bilsker
David Perlson
Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP
50 California Street, 22nd Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111
davidbilsker@quinnemanuel.com
davidperlson@quinnemanuel.com
Robert L. Burns
Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP
Two Freedom Square
11955 Freedom Drive
Reston, VA 20190
robert.burns@finnegan.com
Cortney S. Alexander
Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP
3500 SunTrust Plaza
303 Peachtree Street, NE
Atlanta, GA 94111
cortney.alexander@finnegan.com
/s/ Jeffrey K. Sherwood
4
DSMDB-3102068
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?