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

Filing 866

MOTION to Seal Portions of Defendants' Memorandum in Opposition to Plaintiff's Rule 59 Motion for a New Trial on the Dollar Amount of Damages and Exhibit 2 to the Declaration of Margaret P. Kammerud Filed in Support Thereof 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,
Civil Action No. 2:11-cv-512

v.
AOL INC., et al.,
Defendants.

PROPOSED ORDER

Before the Court is the Motion to Seal (“Defendants’ Motion to Seal”) filed by
Defendants Google Inc., Target Corporation, IAC Search & Media, Inc., Gannett Co., Inc. and
AOL Inc. (collectively “Defendants”).
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’ Memorandum in

Opposition to Plaintiff’s Rule 59 Motion for a New Trial on the Dollar Amount of Damages
(“Memorandum in Opposition to Rule 59 Motion”) and Exhibit 2 to the Declaration of Margaret
P. Kammerud filed in support of that Opposition (“Exhibit 2 to the Kammerud Declaration”) as
they contain data that is confidential under the Protective Order entered in this matter on January
23, 2012 (Doc. 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

01980.51928/5146703.1

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)).
3.

This Court finds that Portions of the Memorandum in Opposition to Rule 59

Motion and Exhibit 2 to the Kammerud Declaration contain data that is confidential under the
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.
4.

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

pleadings: Portions of the Memorandum in Opposition to Rule 59 Motion and Exhibit 2 to the
Kammerud Declaration contain confidential Google financial information that is not generally
known, that has economic value, and would cause competitive harm if made public.
Additionally, some of the material is subject to a pending motion to redact certain transcripts
(Doc. No. 802). The Court also finds that by filing narrowly redacted public pleadings, 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 the Memorandum in Opposition to Rule 59

Motion and Exhibit 2 to the Kammerud Declaration have been reviewed by the Court. In light of
Defendants’ concerns and the Protective Order, there appears to be no alternative other than the
narrowly redacted public pleadings that appropriately serves Defendants’ expressed
confidentiality concerns.
6.

For the sake of consistency with practices governing the case as a whole, Portions

of the Memorandum in Opposition to Rule 59 Motion and Exhibit 2 to the Kammerud

01980.51928/5146703.1

2

Declaration shall remain sealed and be treated in accordance with the terms and conditions of the
Protective Order.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Portions of the Memorandum in Opposition to Rule 59
Motion and Exhibit 2 to the Kammerud Declaration shall be filed under seal. 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.

Entered:

_____/_____/_____

_____________________________
United States District Court
Eastern District of Virginia

01980.51928/5146703.1

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]

01980.51928/5146703.1

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.

12172819v2

01980.51928/5146703.1

5