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

Filing 936

MOTION to Seal (1) Portions Of Defendants Memorandum In Opposition To Plaintiffs Motion For Post-Judgment Royalties, (2) Portions Of The Declaration Of Keith Ugone, Ph.D., In Support Of Defendants Opposition, (3) Certain Exhibits To The Declaration Of Margaret Kammerud In Support Of Defendants Opposition, and (4) Portions Of The Declaration Of Bartholomew Furrow In Support Of Defendants Opposition by AOL Inc., Gannett Company, Inc., Google Inc., IAC Search & Media, Inc., Target Corporation. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Noona, Stephen) Modified on 5/14/2013 to remove duplicate language by changing "MOTION to Seal motion to seal" to "MOTION to Seal."(mwin, )

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 (“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 (1) Portions of Defendants’

Memorandum In Opposition To Plaintiff’s Motion For Post-Judgment Royalties (“Portions of
Defendants’ Opposition”), (2) Portions of the Declaration of Keith Ugone, Ph.D. (“Ugone
Declaration and Certain Exhibits Thereto”), (3) Exhibits 2-21 to the Declaration of Margaret
Kammerud (“Certain Exhibits to the Kammerud Declaration”) and (4) Portions of the
Declaration of Bartholomew Furrow in Support of Defendants’ Opposition (“Furrow
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
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 Defendants’ Opposition, the Ugone Declaration,

Certain Exhibits to the Kammerud Declaration, and the Furrow 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 Defendants’ Opposition, the Ugone Declaration, Certain Exhibits to the
Kammerud Declaration, and the Furrow Declaration contain confidential financial information,
information regarding confidential third party agreements, sensitive, confidential technical
information relating to Google's technology, and sensitive, confidential technical information
relating to an alternative construction of the accused system, all of which are not generally
known, have economic value, and the disclosure of which would cause competitive harm if made
widely public. 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 Defendants’ Opposition, the Ugone Declaration,

Certain Exhibits to the Kammerud Declaration, and the Furrow Declaration have been reviewed
by the Court. In light of Defendants’ concerns and the Protective Order, there appears to be no

2

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 Defendants’ Opposition, the Ugone Declaration, Certain Exhibits to the Kammerud
Declaration, and the Furrow 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 Defendants’ Opposition, the Ugone
Declaration, Exhibits 2-21 to the Kammerud Declaration, and the Furrow Declaration shall be
filed under seal. The Court shall retain sealed materials until forty-five (45) days after entry of a
final order after appeal.
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.

12391543v2

5