I/P Engine, Inc. v. AOL, Inc. et al
Filing
525
Memorandum in Support re 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 Judg filed by AOL Inc., Gannett Company, Inc., Google Inc., IAC Search & Media, Inc., Target Corporation. (Noona, Stephen)
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.
MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF 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
In support of their Motion to Seal pursuant to Local Rule 5, and the Protective Order
entered in this matter on January 23, 2012 (Dk. 85) (“Protective Order”), Defendants Google
Inc., Target Corporation, IAC Search & Media, Inc., Gannet Co., Inc. and AOL Inc. (collectively
“Defendants”) state the following:
1.
Defendants have moved the Court for leave to file under 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”). Portions of Defendants’ Reply in Support and Certain Exhibits to the Sohn
Declaration contain data that is confidential under the Protective Order entered in this matter.
2.
There are three requirements for sealing court findings: (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)). Defendants
contend Portions of Defendants’ Reply in Support and Certain Exhibits to the Sohn Declaration
contain confidential material that should be sealed. Defendants specifically state as reasons for
sealing the requested pleadings that:
(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 testimony) 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.
Defendants have made all reasonable efforts to limit their redactions in compliance with the law
of this Circuit.
3.
In camera copies of Portions of Defendants’ Reply in Support and Certain
Exhibits to the Sohn Declaration are being provided to the Court for review.
In light of
Defendants’ concerns and the Protective Order, there appears to be no alternative that
appropriately serves Defendants’ expressed confidentiality concerns.
4.
For the sake of consistency with practices governing the case as a whole,
Defendants believe Portions of Defendants’ Reply in Support and Certain Exhibits to the Sohn
Declaration should remain sealed and be treated in accordance with the terms and conditions of
the Protective Order.
2
Accordingly, and in satisfaction of the requirements of Local Rule 5, Defendants
respectfully ask the Court to seal Portions of Defendants’ Reply in Support and Certain Exhibits
to the Sohn Declaration.
DATED: October 1, 2012
/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 Google Inc., Target Corporation,
IAC Search & Media, Inc., and Gannet Co., Inc.
By: /s/ Stephen E. Noona
Stephen E. Noona
Virginia State Bar No. 25367
KAUFMAN & CANOLES, P.C.
150 W. Main Street, Suite 2100
Norfolk, VA 23510
Telephone: (757) 624-3000
Facsimile: (757) 624-3169
Robert L. Burns
FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT &
DUNNER, LLP
Two Freedom Square
3
11955 Freedom Drive
Reston, VA 20190
Telephone: (571) 203-2700
Facsimile: (202) 408-4400
Cortney 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.
4
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on October 1, 2012, I will electronically file the foregoing with the
Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system, which will send a notification of such filing (NEF) to
the following:
Jeffrey K. Sherwood
Kenneth W. Brothers
DICKSTEIN SHAPIRO LLP
1825 Eye Street NW
Washington, DC 20006
Telephone: (202) 420-2200
Facsimile: (202) 420-2201
sherwoodj@dicksteinshapiro.com
brothersk@dicksteinshapiro.com
Donald C. Schultz
W. Ryan Snow
Steven Stancliff
CRENSHAW, WARE & MARTIN, P.L.C.
150 West Main Street, Suite 1500
Norfolk, VA 23510
Telephone: (757) 623-3000
Facsimile: (757) 623-5735
dschultz@cwm-law.cm
wrsnow@cwm-law.com
sstancliff@cwm-law.com
Counsel for Plaintiff, I/P Engine, 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
11953694v1
5
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?