I/P Engine, Inc. v. AOL, Inc. et al
Filing
458
Memorandum in Support re 457 MOTION to Seal Plaintiff I/P Engine, Inc.'s Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Exclude the Testimony of Stephen L. Becker along with Exhibits 1-5, 7-8, and 10-11 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 Brief in
Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Exclude the Testimony of Stephen L. Becker along with
Exhibits 1-5, 7-8, 10-11. 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.
Plaintiff I/P Engine, Inc.’s Brief in Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Exclude
the Testimony of Stephen L. Becker along with Exhibits 1-5, 7-8, 10-11
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-3100042
that the Opposition and Exhibits 1-5, 7-8, 10-11 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 and Exhibits 1-5, 7-8, 10-11 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 Brief in Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Exclude the
Testimony of Stephen L. Becker along with Exhibits 1-5, 7-8, 10-11. 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-3100042
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?