I/P Engine, Inc. v. AOL, Inc. et al
Filing
513
NOTICE by I/P Engine, Inc. of Motion to Seal Exhibits 1 and 2 to its Response to Defendants Motion to Seal Documents and Close the Courtroom During Presentation of Confidential Materials at Trial (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
NOTICE OF MOTION TO SEAL EXHIBITS 1 AND 2 TO I/P ENGINE’S RESPONSE
TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO SEAL DOCUMENTS AND CLOSE THE
COURTROOM DURING PRESENTATION OF CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL AT
TRIAL
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT Plaintiff I/P Engine, Inc. (“I/P Engine”), pursuant to
Rule 5 of the Local Rules of Practice for the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Virginia, have moved the court for leave to file under seal Exhibits 1 and 2 to its Response to
Defendants’ Motion to Seal Documents and Close the Courtroom During Presentation of
Confidential Materials at Trial. Grounds and authorities for this Motion are set forth in I/P
Engine’s Memorandum in Support of Motion to Seal. The afore-mentioned contain information
marked as confidential by Defendants and, under the Protective Order (D.I. No. 85), should be
filed under seal. The information contained in these exhibits contain Google’s proprietary and
confidential information.
Before this Court may seal Court documents, it must (1) provide public notice with an
opportunity to object; (2) consider less drastic alternatives; and (3) state specific findings in
support of a decision to seal and reject alternatives to sealing. See, e.g., Flexible Benefits
DSMDB-3103157
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)).
In compliance with Local Rule 5 of the Rules of this Court, the Court posts the following
notice to the public: “This serves as public notice that I/P Engine has moved to file under
Exhibits 1 and 2 to its Response to Defendants’ Motion to Seal Documents and Close the
Courtroom During Presentation of Confidential Materials at Trial. Objections to this Motion
should be filed in the Civil Section of the Clerk’s Office. The Notice will be posted for a
minimum of forty-eight (48) hours.”
Dated: October 1, 2012
By: ___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
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.
2
DSMDB-3103157
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on this 1st day of October, 2012, the foregoing NOTICE OF
MOTION TO SEAL EXHIBITS 1 AND 2 TO I/P ENGINE’S RESPONSE TO
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO SEAL DOCUMENTS AND CLOSE THE COURTROOM
DURING PRESENTATION OF CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL AT TRIAL, 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
3
DSMDB-3103157
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?