I/P Engine, Inc. v. AOL, Inc. et al
Filing
873
MOTION to Seal Plaintiff I/P Engine, Inc.s Opposition to Defendants Renewed Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law on Non-Infringement or New Trial by I/P Engine, Inc.. (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
MOTION TO SEAL I/P ENGINE, INC.’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’
RENEWED MOTION FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW ON NONINFRINGEMENT OR NEW TRIAL
Pursuant to Local Rule 5 and the Agreed Protective Order entered by the Court [Dkt. No.
85], Plaintiff I/P Engine, Inc. (“I/P Engine”) respectfully moves this Court for entry of the
attached Order permitting Plaintiff to file under seal its Opposition to Defendants’ Renewed
Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law on Non-Infringement or New Trial. Grounds and
authorities for this Motion are set forth in I/P Engine’s Memorandum in Support of Motion to
Seal. In compliance with Local Rule 5, I/P Engine attaches a Proposed Agreed Order as Exhibit
1 and is filing separately a Public Notice of I/P Engine’s Motion to Seal. I/P Engine requests
that the Court retain sealed materials until forty-five (45) days after a final order is entered and
request that, unless the case is appealed, any sealed materials be returned to counsel for the filing
parties. The parties have agreed that confidential materials should be filed under seal.
Dated: January 25, 2013
By: /s/ Jeffrey K. Sherwood
Donald C. Schultz (Virginia Bar No. 30531)
W. Ryan Snow (Virginia Bar No. 47423)
DSMDB-3135596
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-3135596
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on this 25th day of January, 2013, the foregoing MOTION
TO SEAL I/P ENGINE, INC.’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ RENEWED
MOTION FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW ON NON-INFRINGEMENT OR
NEW 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-3135596
EXHIBIT 1
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
[PROPOSED] AGREED ORDER
Before the Court is Plaintiff I/P Engine, Inc.’s (“I/P Engine”) Motion to Seal its
Opposition to Defendants’ Renewed Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law on NonInfringement or New 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.
Opposition to Defendants’ Renewed Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law on
Non-Infringement or New 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
4
DSMDB-3135596
that I/P Engine’s Opposition to Defendants’ Renewed Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law
on Non-Infringement or New 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, I/P
Engine’s Opposition to Defendants’ Renewed Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law on NonInfringement or New 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 its Opposition to Defendants’ Renewed Motion for Judgment as a
Matter of Law on Non-Infringement or New 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: January ___, 2013
Entered:
____/____/____
__________________________
United States District Court
Eastern District of Virginia
5
DSMDB-3135596
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?