`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 1125 Filed 03/07/22 Page 1 of 4 PageID# 30499
`
`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. 1109) filed by Philip Morris Products
`
`S.A., Philip Morris USA Inc., and Altria Client Services, LLC (collectively, “PM/Altria’”) to seal
`
`an un-redacted version of PMI/Altria’s Reply in Support of Motion to Exclude Opinions of
`
`RJR’s Experts Based on Rejected Claim Constructions pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
`
`Procedure 5.2(d) and Local Civil Rule 5(C). Because the document that PM/Altria seeks to seal
`
`contains 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) considerless 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 1125 Filed 03/07/22 Page 2 of 4 PagelD# 30500
`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 1125 Filed 03/07/22 Page 2 of 4 PageID# 30500
`
`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 hasfiled a memorandumin 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 beensatisfied. G7SJ 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 hasfiled a publicly redacted version ofits
`
`Reply in Support of Motion to Exclude Opinions of RJR’s Experts Based on Rejected Claim
`
`Constructions (Dkt. 1108), in addition to a sealed version (Dkt. 1111), and has redacted only
`
`those limited portions it seeks to seal. This selective and narrow protection of confidential
`
`material constitutes the least drastic method ofshielding the information at issue. Adamsv.
`
`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.Jd.
`
`(“[T]here is no legitimate public interest in disclosing the proprietary and confidential
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 1125 Filed 03/07/22 Page 3 of 4 PagelD# 30501
`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 1125 Filed 03/07/22 Page 3 of 4 PageID# 30501
`
`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/orthird 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/orthird parties:
`
`e
`
`PMI/Altria’s Reply in Support of Motion to Exclude Opinions of RJR’s Experts
`
`Based on Rejected Claim Constructions.
`
`3.
`
`There is support forfiling portions of PMI/Altria’s Reply in Support of Motion to
`
`Exclude Opinions of RJR’s Experts Based on Rejected Claim Constructions underseal, with a
`
`publicly filed version containing strictly limited redactions. PMI/Altria’s Reply in Support of
`
`Motion to Exclude Opinions of RJR’s Experts Based on Rejected Claim Constructions contains
`
`materials that fall within the scope ofthe stipulated protective order. Placing these materials
`
`underseal is proper because the public’s interest in access is outweighed by a party’s interest in
`
`“preserving confidentiality” of the limited amountofconfidential 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
`
`ORDEREDthat the motion is GRANTED,and PM/Altria is granted leave to file a
`
`REDACTEDversion of PMI/Altria’s Reply in Support of Motion to Exclude Opinions of RJR’s
`
`Experts Based on Rejected Claim Constructions.
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 1125 Filed 03/07/22 Page 4 of 4 PagelD# 30502
`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 1125 Filed 03/07/22 Page 4 of 4 PageID# 30502
`
`And to file UNDER SEALa un-redacted version of PMI/Altria’s Reply in Support of
`
`Motion to Exclude Opinions of RJR’s Experts Based on Rejected Claim Constructions.
`
`And FURTHER ORDEREDthat a un-redacted version of PMI/Altria’s Reply in
`
`Support of Motion to Exclude Opinions of RJR’s Experts Based on Rejected Claim
`
`Constructions shall remain SEALED until further order of the Court.
`
`ENTEREDthis 7th day of March, 2022.
`
`
`/s/
`[LZ
`Theresa Carroll]
`
`HERESAC/RROLMEGANTHYocUNITED STATES MAGISTRATE
`
`Alexandria, Virginia
`
`JUDGE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`