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

Filing 524

MOTION to Seal Portions of the Reply in Support of Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment, and Exhibits 34 and 36 to the Declaration of Joshua L. Sohn in Support of Defendants' Reply in Support of Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment by AOL Inc., Gannett Company, Inc., Google Inc., IAC Search & Media, Inc., Target Corporation. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Noona, Stephen)

Exhibit 1

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., Gannet Co., Inc. and AOL Inc. (collectively
“Defendants”) (“Defendants’ Motion to Seal”) Portions of the Reply in Support of Defendants’
Motion for Summary Judgment (“Defendants’ Reply in Support”) and Exhibits 34 and 36 to the
Declaration of Joshua L. Sohn in Support of the Reply in Support of Defendants’ Motion for
Summary Judgment (“Certain Exhibits to Sohn the 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’ Reply in

Support and Certain Exhibits to the Sohn Declaration.
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 Ashcraft v. Conoco, Inc., 218 F.3d 282, 288 (4th Cir. 2000)). This Court finds
that Portions of Defendants’ Reply in Support and Certain Exhibits to the Sohn Declaration may
contain data that is confidential under the Protective Order entered in this matter on January 23,
2012 (Dk. 85) (“Protective Order”); 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, Portions

of Defendants’ Reply in Support and Certain Exhibits to the Sohn Declaration shall remain
sealed and be treated in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Protective Order.
4.

Specifically, the Court finds the following reasons for sealing the requested

pleadings:
(1) Portions of Defendants’ Reply in Support contain confidential Google
technical information which is not generally known, that has economic value and
would cause competitive harm if made public;
(2) Exhibit 34 to the Sohn Declaration (excerpt of deposition testimony) contains
confidential Google technical information which is not generally known, that has
economic value and would cause competitive harm if made public; and
(3) Exhibit 36 to the Sohn Declaration (deposition transcript) describes
confidential Google technical information including source code which is not
generally known, that has economic value and would cause competitive harm if
made public.
5.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Seal is granted and

Defendants are permitted to file under seal Portions of Defendants’ Reply in Support and Certain
Exhibits to the Sohn 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.

2

Dated: October ____, 2012

Entered:

_____/_____/_____

______________________________
United States District Court
Eastern District of Virginia

3

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: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
[e-mail]
David Bilsker
David A. Perlson
QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART &
SULLIVAN, LLP
50 California Street, 22nd Floor
San Francisco, California 94111
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
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: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
[e-mail]
Robert L. Burns
FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW,
GARRETT & DUNNER, LLP
Two Freedom Square
11955 Freedom Drive
Reston, VA 20190
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

4

Courtney S. Alexander
FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW,
GARRETT & DUNNER, LLP
3500 SunTrust Plaza
303 Peachtree Street, NE
Atlanta, GA 94111
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Counsel for Defendant AOL Inc.

11953696v1

5