I/P Engine, Inc. v. AOL, Inc. et al
Filing
465
MOTION to Seal Defendants' Memorandum in Support of Their Opposition to Plaintiff I/P Engine, Inc.'s Motion to Exclude Opinions and Testimony of Keith R. Ugone by AOL Inc., Gannett Company, Inc., Google Inc., IAC Search & Media, Inc., Target Corporation. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Noona, Stephen)
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’ Memorandum in
Support of Their Opposition to Plaintiff I/P Engine Inc.’s Motion to Exclude Opinions and
Testimony of Keith R. Ugone (“Portions of Defendants’ Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion to
Exclude Opinions and Testimony of Keith R. Ugone”) and (2) Exhibits A through E to Emily C.
O’Brien’s Declaration in Support of Defendants’ Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion to Exclude
Opinions and Testimony of Keith R. Ugone (“Exhibits A through E to the O’Brien
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 Motion to Exclude Opinions and Testimony of Keith R. Ugone and Exhibits A
through E to the O’Brien 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 Ashcroft v. Conoco, Inc., 218 F.3d 282, 288 (4th Cir. 2000)).
3.
This Court finds that Portions of Defendants’ Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion to
Exclude Opinions and Testimony of Keith R. Ugone and Exhibits A through E to the O’Brien
Declaration 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.
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 Inc.’s Motion to Exclude Opinions and Testimony of Keith R.
Ugone contain confidential third party licensing information, confidential Google
licensing information, confidential I/P Engine licensing information, and
confidential Google financial information that is not generally known, that has
economic value, and would cause competitive harm if made public;
(b) Exhibit A to Emily C. O’Brien’s Declaration in Support of Defendants’
Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion to Exclude Opinions and Testimony of Keith R.
Ugone contains confidential settlement and license agreements containing
information that is not generally known, that has economic value, and would
cause competitive harm if made public;
(c) Exhibit B to Emily C. O’Brien’s Declaration in Support of Defendants’
Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion to Exclude Opinions and Testimony of Keith R.
Ugone contains confidential settlement and license agreements containing
information that is not generally known, that has economic value, and would
cause competitive harm if made public;
2
(d) Exhibit C to Emily C. O’Brien’s Declaration in Support of Defendants’
Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion to Exclude Opinions and Testimony of Keith R.
Ugone contains confidential settlement and license agreements containing
information that is not generally known, that has economic value, and would
cause competitive harm if made public;
(e) Exhibit D to Emily C. O’Brien’s Declaration in Support of Defendants’
Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion to Exclude Opinions and Testimony of Keith R.
Ugone contains confidential third party licensing information, Google licensing
information, I/P Engine licensing information, Google financial information, and
Google technical information that is not generally known, that has economic
value, and would cause competitive harm if made public; and
(f) Exhibit E to Emily C. O’Brien’s Declaration in Support of Defendants’
Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion to Exclude Opinions and Testimony of Keith R.
Ugone contains confidential third party licensing information and Google
licensing information that 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 Motion to
Exclude Opinions and Testimony of Keith R. Ugone and Exhibits A through E to the O’Brien
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 Motion to Exclude Opinions and Testimony of Keith R.
Ugone and Exhibits A through E to the O’Brien 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 Motion to
3
Exclude Opinions and Testimony of Keith R. Ugone and Exhibits A through E to the O’Brien
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.
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: (757) 624.3000
Facsimile: (757) 624.3169
senoona@kaufcan.com
David Bilsker
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 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: (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
5
Courtney 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.
11949023v1
11949023v1
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?