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

Filing 995

MOTION to Seal Supplemental Memorandum Setting Forth Additional New Facts Justifying Its Request for Default Judgment in I/P Engine's Motion for Defendants to Show Cause Under Rule 37 for Noncompliance with the August 13, 2013 Order Along with Exhibits A and C and the Declaration of Charles J. Monterio, Jr. In Support of I/P Engine's Supplemental Memorandum of Additional Facts by I/P Engine, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Sherwood, Jeffrey)

EXHIBIT 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
NORFOLK DIVISION
__________________________________________
)
I/P ENGINE, INC.,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
v.
)
)
AOL, INC. et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
__________________________________________)

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
Supplemental Memorandum Setting Forth Additional New Facts Justifying Its Request For
Default Judgment In I/P Engine’s Motion For Defendants To Show Cause Under Rule 37 For
Noncompliance with the August 13, 2013 Order Along with Exhibits A and C and the
Declaration of Charles J. Monterio, Jr. in Support of I/P Engine’s Supplemental Memorandum of
Additional Facts. 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.

Supplemental Memorandum Setting Forth Additional New Facts Justifying Its

Request For Default Judgment In I/P Engine’s Motion For Defendants To Show Cause Under
Rule 37 For Noncompliance with the August 13, 2013 Order Along with Exhibits A and C and
the Declaration of Charles J. Monterio, Jr. in Support of I/P Engine’s Supplemental
Memorandum of Additional Facts.

DSMDB-3202983

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
that I/P Engine’s Supplemental Memorandum Setting Forth Additional New Facts Justifying Its
Request For Default Judgment In I/P Engine’s Motion For Defendants To Show Cause Under
Rule 37 For Noncompliance with the August 13, 2013 Order Along with Exhibits A and C and
the Declaration of Charles J. Monterio, Jr. in Support of I/P Engine’s Supplemental
Memorandum of Additional Facts 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 Supplemental Memorandum Setting Forth Additional New Facts Justifying Its Request
For Default Judgment In I/P Engine’s Motion For Defendants To Show Cause Under Rule 37
For Noncompliance with the August 13, 2013 Order Along with Exhibits A and C and the
Declaration of Charles J. Monterio, Jr. in Support of I/P Engine’s Supplemental Memorandum of
Additional Facts 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 Supplemental Memorandum Setting Forth Additional New Facts

2
DSMDB-3202983

Justifying Its Request For Default Judgment In I/P Engine’s Motion For Defendants To Show
Cause Under Rule 37 For Noncompliance with the August 13, 2013 Order Along with Exhibits
A and C and the Declaration of Charles J. Monterio, Jr. in Support of I/P Engine’s Supplemental
Memorandum of Additional Facts. 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: October ___, 2013

Entered:

____/____/____

__________________________
United States District Court
Eastern District of Virginia

3
DSMDB-3202983