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

Filing 515

Memorandum in Support re 514 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 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 Exhibits 1 and 2
to its Response to Defendants’ Motion to Seal Documents and Close the Courtroom During
Presentation of Confidential Materials at Trial. 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.

Exhibits 1 and 2 to its Response to Defendants’ Motion to Seal Documents and

Close the Courtroom During Presentation of Confidential Materials at Trial
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-3099625

that Exhibits 1 and 2 to its Response to Defendants’ Motion to Seal Documents and Close the
Courtroom During Presentation of Confidential Materials at Trial 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, Exhibits

1 and 2 to its Response to Defendants’ Motion to Seal Documents and Close the Courtroom
During Presentation of Confidential Materials at Trial 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 Exhibits 1 and 2 to its Response to Defendants’ Motion to Seal
Documents and Close the Courtroom During Presentation of Confidential Materials at Trial. 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-3099625