Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 1051 Filed 02/22/22 Page 1 of 4 PageID# 29318
`
`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.
`
`Civil Action No. 1:20-cv-393-LO-TCB
`
`(cid:3)
`
`ORDER GRANTING REYNOLDS’S MOTION TO SEAL
`
`This matter is before the Court on the motion filed by RAI Strategic Holdings, Inc., and
`
`R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company (collectively, “Reynolds”) to file its Opposition to PM/Altria’s
`
`Daubert Motion to Exclude the Testimony of Ryan Sullivan and Accompanying Exhibits 1-5,
`
`and 7 under seal pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2(d) and Local Civil Rule 5(C).
`
`(cid:11)See Dkt. 958.(cid:12)
`
` Because
`
`the documents
`
`that Reynolds seeks
`
`to seal contain
`
`confidential, proprietary, and competitively sensitive business information of Altria Client
`
`Services LLC (“ACS”), Philip Morris USA Inc. (“PM USA”), and/or Philip Morris
`
`Products S.A. (“PMP”) (collectively, “PMI/Altria”) and/or third parties, PMI/Altria filed a
`
`memorandum in support of Reynolds’s Motion to Seal. (cid:11)(cid:39)(cid:78)(cid:87)(cid:17)(cid:3)(cid:20)(cid:19)(cid:22)(cid:26)(cid:17)(cid:12)(cid:3)
`
`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
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 1051 Filed 02/22/22 Page 2 of 4 PageID# 29319
`
`supporting its decision to seal the documents and for rejecting the alternatives.” Ashcraft v.
`
`Conoco, Inc., 218 F.3d 282, 288 (4th Cir. 2000) (internal citations omitted). Upon consideration
`
`of Reynolds’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. Reynolds’s Motion to Seal was publicly docketed in accordance with
`
`Local Civil Rule 5. PMI/Altria filed a memorandum in support of sealing. The “public has had
`
`ample opportunity to object” to Reynolds’s motion and, since “the Court has received no
`
`objections,” the first requirement under Ashcraft is met. 218 F.3d at 302; see also GTSI Corp. v.
`
`Wildflower Int’l, Inc., No. 09-cv-123, 2009 WL 1248114, at *9 (E.D. Va. Apr. 30, 2009); U.S.
`
`ex rel Carter v. Halliburton Co., No. 10-cv-864, 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.
`
`Reynolds seeks to seal and redact from the public record only information
`
`designated by the parties as confidential. Reynolds filed publicly redacted versions of its
`
`Opposition to PM/Altria’s Daubert Motion to Exclude the Testimony of Ryan Sullivan and
`
`Accompanying Exhibits 1 and 4, in addition to a sealed version, and redacted only those limited
`
`portions that Reynolds seeks to seal. Reynolds also filed Exhibits 2-3, 5, and 7 wholly under
`
`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. 11-cv-272,
`
`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
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 1051 Filed 02/22/22 Page 3 of 4 PageID# 29320
`
`information that is confidential to Reynolds and PMI/Altria. Id. at *4. The information that
`
`Reynolds seeks to seal includes confidential, proprietary, and competitively sensitive business
`
`information of PMI/Altria and/or third parties, each of which could face harm if such information
`
`were to be released publicly. Specifically, the sensitive information that Reynolds moves for
`
`leave to file under seal, and to redact from a publicly filed version, includes materials from
`
`PMI/Altria and/or third parties, such as confidential business information falling under the scope
`
`of the protective order.
`
`3.
`
`There is support for filing portions of Reynolds’s Memorandum and
`
`accompanying Exhibits under seal, with a publicly filed version containing strictly limited
`
`redactions. The Memorandum and accompanying Exhibits contain material that falls 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. 08-cv-00371, 2008 WL 4924711, at *1 (E.D. Va. Nov.
`
`13, 2008); U.S. ex rel. Carter, 2011 WL 2077799, at *3.
`
`(cid:37)(cid:68)(cid:86)(cid:72)(cid:71)(cid:3)on the findings above, for good cause shown, it is hereby
`
`ORDERED that the motion (cid:11)(cid:39)(cid:78)(cid:87)(cid:17)(cid:3) (cid:28)(cid:24)(cid:27)(cid:12)(cid:3) is GRANTED, and Reynolds is granted
`
`leave to file a REDACTED version of the Memorandum and accompanying Exhibits 1 and 4(cid:3)
`
`(cid:11)(cid:39)(cid:78)(cid:87)(cid:3)(cid:28)(cid:25)(cid:21)(cid:12); (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)(cid:3)
`
`(cid:50)(cid:53)(cid:39)(cid:40)(cid:53)(cid:40)(cid:39)(cid:3)(cid:87)(cid:75)(cid:68)(cid:87)(cid:3)(cid:53)(cid:72)(cid:92)(cid:81)(cid:82)(cid:79)(cid:71)(cid:86)(cid:3)(cid:80)(cid:68)(cid:92) file UNDER SEAL an unredacted version of
`
`Memorandum and accompanying Exhibits 1-5, and 7(cid:3)(cid:11)(cid:39)(cid:78)(cid:87)(cid:17)(cid:3)(cid:28)(cid:25)(cid:19)(cid:12); (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)(cid:3)
`
`ORDERED that the unredacted version of the Memorandum and accompanying
`
`Exhibits 1-5, and 7 (cid:11)(cid:39)(cid:78)(cid:87)(cid:17)(cid:3)(cid:28)(cid:25)(cid:19)(cid:12)(cid:3)shall remain SEALED until further order of the Court:
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 1051 Filed 02/22/22 Page 4 of 4 PageID# 29321
`
`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), 202(cid:21).
`
`Alexandria, Virginia
`
`/s/
`__________________________________
`(cid:55)(cid:43)(cid:40)(cid:53)(cid:40)(cid:54)(cid:36)(cid:3)(cid:38)(cid:36)(cid:53)(cid:53)(cid:50)(cid:47)(cid:47)(cid:3)(cid:37)(cid:56)(cid:38)(cid:43)(cid:36)(cid:49)(cid:36)(cid:49)
`(cid:56)(cid:49)(cid:44)(cid:55)(cid:40)(cid:39)(cid:3)(cid:54)(cid:55)(cid:36)(cid:55)(cid:40)(cid:54)(cid:3)(cid:48)(cid:36)(cid:42)(cid:44)(cid:54)(cid:55)(cid:53)(cid:36)(cid:55)(cid:40)(cid:3)(cid:45)(cid:56)(cid:39)(cid:42)(cid:40)
`
`4
`
`