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

Filing 970

MOTION to Seal (1) Exhibit 1 To The Declaration Of Keith Ugone, Ph.D., In Support Of Defendants Opposition To Plaintiff I/P Engine, Inc.s Notice Of Calculation Of Supplemental Damages, Prejudgment Interest and Post-Judgment Interest; and (2) Exhibit B To The Declaration Of Margaret P. Kammerud 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
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) Exhibit 1 to the Declaration of Keith

Ugone, Ph.D., in Support of Defendants’ Opposition to Plaintiff I/P Engine, Inc.’s Notice of
Calculation of Supplemental Damages, Prejudgment Interest and Post-Judgment Interest
(“Exhibit 1 to the Ugone Declaration”), and (2) Exhibit B to the Declaration of Margaret
Kammerud in Support of Defendants’ Opposition to Plaintiff I/P Engine, Inc.’s Notice of
Calculation of Supplemental Damages, Prejudgment Interest and Post-Judgment Interest
(“Exhibit B 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
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 Exhibit 1 to the Ugone Declaration, and Exhibit B 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: Exhibit 1 to the Ugone Declaration, and Exhibit B to the Kammerud Declaration
contain confidential financial information all of which is not generally known, has 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 Exhibit 1 to the Ugone Declaration, and Exhibit B 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, Exhibit

1 to the Ugone Declaration, and Exhibit B to the Kammerud Declaration shall remain sealed and
be treated in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Protective Order.

2

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Exhibit 1 to the Ugone Declaration, and Exhibit B 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 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.

12612363v1

5