`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 1123 Filed 03/07/22 Page 1 of 4 PageID# 30491
`
`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,
`
`Case No. 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; PHILIP
`MORRIS USAINC.; and PHILIP MORRIS
`PRODUCTSS.A.,
`
`Defendants and Counterclaim Plaintiffs.
`
`ORDER GRANTING PM/ALTRIA’S MOTION TO SEAL
`
`This matter is before the Court on the motion (Dkt. 1094)filed by Philip Morris Products
`
`S.A., Philip Morris USAInc., and Altria Client Services, LLC (collectively, “PM/Altria’”) to seal
`
`un-redacted versions of PMI/Altria’s Reply in Support of PMI/Altria’s Daubert Motion to
`
`Exclude the Opinions of RJR’s Damages Expert, Dr. Ryan Sullivan and Exhibits 2-3, 7-9, and 13
`
`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.
`
`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 1123 Filed 03/07/22 Page 2 of 4 PagelD# 30492
`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 1123 Filed 03/07/22 Page 2 of 4 PageID# 30492
`
`supporting its decision to seal the documentsand for rejecting the alternatives.” Ashcraft v.
`
`Conoco, Inc., 218 F.3d 288, 302 (4th Cir. 2000) (internal citations omitted). Upon consideration
`
`of PM/Altria’s motion to seal and its memorandumin support thereof, the Court hereby FINDS
`
`as follows:
`
`l.
`
`Thepublic has received notice of the request to seal and has had reasonable
`
`opportunity to object. PM/Alltria’s sealing motion was publicly docketed in accordance with
`
`Local Civil Rule 5. Reynoldshasfiled 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. G7SY 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 versionsofits
`
`Reply in Support of PMI/Altria’s Daubert Motion to Exclude the Opinions of RJR’s Damages
`
`Expert, Dr. Ryan Sullivan and Exhibits 2-3, 7-9, and 13 (Dkt. 1093), in addition to sealed
`
`versions (Dkt. 1096), 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 informationat issue.”). The public has no legitimate interest in
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 1123 Filed 03/07/22 Page 3 of 4 PagelD# 30493
`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 1123 Filed 03/07/22 Page 3 of 4 PageID# 30493
`
`information that is confidential to Reynolds. /d. (“[T]here is no legitimate public interest in
`
`disclosing the proprietary and confidential information of [the defendant] ... 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 movesfor leaveto file
`
`underseal, and to redact from a publicly filed version, includes proprietary and commercially
`
`sensitive business, financial, and design information of Reynolds and/or third parties:
`
`e PMI/Altria’s Reply in Support of PMI/Altria’s Daubert Motion to Exclude the
`
`Opinions of RJR’s Damages Expert, Dr. Ryan Sullivan;
`
`e Exhibit 2, an excerpt of a deposition transcript;
`
`e Exhibit 3, a letter between counsel;
`
`e Exhibit 7, an excerpt of a deposition transcript;
`
`e Exhibit 8, an excerpt of an expert report;
`
`e Exhibit 9, an excerpt of a deposition transcript; and
`
`e Exhibit 13, an excerpt of a deposition transcript.
`
`3.
`
`There is support forfiling portions of PMI/Altria’s Reply in Support of
`
`PMI/Altria’s Daubert Motion to Exclude the Opinions of RJR’s Damages Expert, Dr. Ryan
`
`Sullivan and Exhibits 2-3, 7-9, and 13 under seal, with publicly filed versions containingstrictly
`
`limited redactions. PMI/Altria’s Reply in Support of PMI/Altria’s Daubert Motion to Exclude
`
`the Opinions of RJR’s Damages Expert, Dr. Ryan Sullivan and Exhibits 2-3, 7-9, and 13 contain
`
`materials that fall within the scopeofthe stipulated protective order. Placing these materials
`
`underseal is proper because the public’s interest in access is outweighed by a party’s interest in
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 1123 Filed 03/07/22 Page 4 of 4 PagelD# 30494
`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 1123 Filed 03/07/22 Page 4 of 4 PageID# 30494
`
`“preserving confidentiality” of the limited amount of confidential informationthatis “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
`
`ORDERED that the motion (Dkt, 1094) is GRANTED, and PM/Altria is granted leave to file
`
`REDACTED versions of PMI/Altria’s Reply in Support of PMI/Altria’s Daubert Motion to
`
`Exclude the Opinions of RJR’s Damages Expert, Dr. Ryan Sullivan and Exhibits 2-3, 7-9, and 13
`
`(Dkt. 1093).
`
`And to file UNDER SEALun-redacted versions of PMI/Altria’s Reply in Support of
`
`PMI/Altria’s Daubert Motion to Exclude the Opinions of RJR’s Damages Expert, Dr. Ryan
`
`Sullivan and Exhibits 2-3, 7-9, and 13. (Dkt. 1096.)
`
`And FURTHER ORDEREDthat un-redacted versions of PMI/Altria’s Reply in Support
`
`of PMI/Altria’s Daubert Motion to Exclude the Opinions of RJR’s Damages Expert, Dr. Ryan
`
`Sullivan and Exhibits 2-3, 7-9, and 13 (Dkt. 1096) shall remain SEALEDuntil further order of
`
`the Court.
`
`ENTERED this 7th day of March, 2022.
`
` /s/
`
`heresa Carroll Buchanan
`THERESAKCARROLMBUTE
`UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
`
`
`
`Alexandria, Virginia
`
`