`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
`ALEXANDRIA DIVISION
`
`RAI STRATEGIC HOLDINGS, INC. and
`R.J. REYNOLDS VAPOR COMPANY,
`
`Plaintiffs and Counterclaim Defendants,
`
`v.
`
`ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; PHILIP
`MORRIS USA INC.; and PHILIP MORRIS
`PRODUCTS S.A.,
`
`Defendants and Counterclaim Plaintiffs.
`
`Case No. 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB
`
`(cid:3)
`
`(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)ORDER GRANTING PM/ALTRIA’S MOTION TO SEAL
`
`This matter is before the Court on the motion (Dkt. 983) filed by Philip Morris Products
`
`S.A., Philip Morris USA Inc., and Altria Client Services, LLC (collectively, “PM/Altria”) to seal(cid:3)
`
`un-redacted versions of Exhibits A-E to PMI/Altria’s Opposition to RJR’s Motion in Limine No.
`
`7 pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2(d) and Local Civil Rule 5(C). Because the
`
`documents that PM/Altria seeks to seal contain confidential, proprietary, and competitively
`
`sensitive business, financial, and design information of RAI Strategic Holdings, Inc. and R.J.
`
`Reynolds Vapor Company (collectively, “Reynolds”), Reynolds filed a memorandum in support
`
`of PM/Altria’s sealing request. (cid:11)(cid:39)(cid:78)(cid:87)(cid:17)(cid:3)(cid:20)(cid:19)(cid:21)(cid:25)(cid:17)(cid:12)
`
`Before this Court may seal documents, it must: “(1) provide public notice of the request
`
`to seal and allow interested parties a reasonable opportunity to object, (2) consider less drastic
`
`alternatives to sealing the documents, and (3) provide specific reasons and factual findings
`
`supporting its decision to seal the documents and for rejecting the alternatives.” Ashcraft v.
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 1046 Filed 02/22/22 Page 2 of 4 PageID# 29299
`
`Conoco, Inc., 218 F.3d 288, 302 (4th Cir. 2000) (internal citations omitted). Upon consideration
`
`of PM/Altria’s motion to seal and its memorandum in support thereof, the Court hereby FINDS
`
`as follows:
`
`1.
`
`The public has received notice of the request to seal and has had reasonable
`
`opportunity to object. PM/Altria’s sealing motion was publicly docketed in accordance with
`
`Local Civil Rule 5. Reynolds has filed a memorandum in support of sealing. The “public has had
`
`ample opportunity to object” to PM/Altria’s motion and, since “the Court has received no
`
`objections,” the first requirement under Ashcraft, 218 F.3d at 302, has been satisfied. GTSI Corp.
`
`v. Wildflower Int’l, Inc., No. 1:09CV123(JCC), 2009 WL 1248114, at *9 (E.D. Va. Apr. 30,
`
`2009); United. States ex rel. Carter v. Halliburton Co., No. 1:10CV864 (JCC/TCB), 2011 WL
`
`2077799, at *3 (E.D. Va. May 24, 2011) (“[T]he parties provided public notice of the request to
`
`seal that allowed interested parties a reasonable opportunity to object—nearly two weeks.”).
`
`2.
`
`PM/Altria seeks to seal and redact from the public record only information
`
`designated by the parties as confidential. PM/Altria has filed publicly redacted versions of its
`
`Exhibits A-E to PMI/Altria’s Opposition to RJR’s Motion in Limine No. 7 (Dkt. 987), in addition
`
`to sealed versions (Dkt. 986), and has redacted only those limited portions it seeks to seal. This
`
`selective and narrow protection of confidential material constitutes the least drastic method of
`
`shielding the information at issue. Adams v. Object Innovation, Inc., No. 3:11CV272-REP-
`
`DWD, 2011 WL 7042224, at *4 (E.D. Va. Dec. 5, 2011) (The “proposal to redact only the
`
`proprietary and confidential information, rather than seal the entirety of his declaration,
`
`constitutes the least drastic method of shielding the information at issue.”). The public has no
`
`legitimate interest in information that is confidential to Reynolds. Id. (“[T]here is no legitimate
`
`public interest in disclosing the proprietary and confidential information of [the defendant] …
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 1046 Filed 02/22/22 Page 3 of 4 PageID# 29300
`
`and disclosure to the public could result in significant damage to the company.”). The
`
`information that PM/Altria seeks to seal includes confidential, proprietary, and competitively
`
`sensitive business information of Reynolds and/or third parties, each of which could face harm if
`
`such information were to be released publicly. Specifically, the sensitive information that
`
`PM/Altria moves for leave to file under seal, and to redact from a publicly filed version, includes
`
`proprietary and commercially sensitive business, financial, and design information of Reynolds
`
`and/or third parties:
`
`(cid:120) Exhibit A, a letter from counsel;
`
`(cid:120) Exhibit B, an excerpt of an expert report;
`
`(cid:120) Exhibit C, an excerpt of an expert report;
`
`(cid:120) Exhibit D, an excerpt of a deposition transcript; and
`
`(cid:120) Exhibit E, an excerpt of an expert report.
`
`3.
`
`There is support for filing portions of Exhibits A-E to PMI/Altria’s Opposition to
`
`RJR’s Motion in Limine No. 7 under seal, with publicly filed versions containing strictly limited
`
`redactions. Exhibits A-E to PMI/Altria’s Opposition to RJR’s Motion in Limine No. 7 contain
`
`materials that fall within the scope of the stipulated protective order. Placing these materials
`
`under seal is proper because the public’s interest in access is outweighed by a party’s interest in
`
`“preserving confidentiality” of the limited amount of confidential information that is “normally
`
`unavailable to the public.” Flexible Benefits Council v. Feltman, No. 1:08-cv-371-JCC, 2008 WL
`
`4924711, at *1 (E.D. Va. Nov. 13, 2008); United States ex rel. Carter, 2011 WL 2077799, at *3.
`
`Therefore, based on the findings above, for good cause shown, it is hereby
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 1046 Filed 02/22/22 Page 4 of 4 PageID# 29301
`
`ORDERED that the motion(cid:3)(cid:11)(cid:39)(cid:78)(cid:87)(cid:17)(cid:3)(cid:28)(cid:27)(cid:22)(cid:12) is GRANTED, and PM/Altria is granted leave
`
`to file REDACTED versions of Exhibits A-E to PMI/Altria’s Opposition to RJR’s Motion in
`
`Limine No. 7(cid:3)(cid:11)(cid:39)(cid:78)(cid:87)(cid:17)(cid:3)(cid:28)(cid:27)(cid:26)(cid:12)(cid:30)
`
`And to file UNDER SEAL un-redacted versions of Exhibits A-E to PMI/Altria’s
`
`Opposition to RJR’s Motion in Limine No. 7(cid:3)(cid:11)(cid:39)(cid:78)(cid:87)(cid:17)(cid:3)(cid:28)(cid:27)(cid:25)(cid:12)(cid:30)(cid:3)(cid:68)(cid:81)(cid:71)(cid:3)(cid:76)(cid:87)(cid:3)(cid:76)(cid:86)(cid:3)(cid:73)(cid:88)(cid:85)(cid:87)(cid:75)(cid:72)(cid:85)
`
`ORDERED that un-redacted versions of Exhibits A-E to PMI/Altria’s Opposition to
`
`RJR’s Motion in Limine No. 7 (cid:11)(cid:39)(cid:78)(cid:87)(cid:17)(cid:3)(cid:28)(cid:27)(cid:25)(cid:12)(cid:3)shall remain SEALED until further order of the
`
`Court.
`
`ENTERED this (cid:21)(cid:21)(cid:81)(cid:71) day of (cid:41)(cid:72)(cid:69)(cid:85)(cid:88)(cid:68)(cid:85)(cid:92), 2022.
`
`Alexandria, Virginia
`
`/s/
`____________________________________
`THERESA CARROLL BUCHANAN
`UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
`
`4
`
`