Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 1127 Filed 03/07/22 Page 1 of 4 PagelD# 30507
`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 1127 Filed 03/07/22 Page 1 of 4 PageID# 30507
`
`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,
`
`Civil Action No. 1:20-cv-393
`
`ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; PHILIP
`MORRIS USAINC.; and PHILIP MORRIS
`PRODUCTSS.A.
`
`Defendants and Counterclaim Plaintiffs.
`
`ORDER GRANTING REYNOLDS’ MOTIONS TO SEAL
`
`This matter is before the Court on the motions filed by RAI Strategic Holdings, Inc., and
`
`R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company (collectively, “Reynolds”to file certain memorandums and
`
`accompanying exhibits under seal pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2(d) and Local
`
`Civil Rule 5(C). See Dkts. 1054, 1061, 1067, 1072, 1077, 1083, and 1088 (collectively “Sealing
`
`_ Motions”). 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’
`
`Sealing Motions.
`
`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 1127 Filed 03/07/22 Page 2 of 4 PagelD# 30508
`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 1127 Filed 03/07/22 Page 2 of 4 PageID# 30508
`
`supporting its decision to seal the documents and for rejecting the alternatives.” Ashcraft v.
`
`Conoco, Inc., 218 F.3d 282, 288 (4th Cir. 2000)(internalcitations omitted). Upon consideration
`
`of Reynolds’ Sealing Motions and its memorandum in support thereof, the Court hereby FINDS
`
`as follows:
`
`l.
`
`The public has received notice of the request to seal and has had reasonable
`
`opportunity to object. Reynolds’ Sealing Motions were 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’ motions 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 the
`
`following documentsand exhibits, in addition to a sealed version, and redacted only thoselimited
`
`portions that Reynolds seeksto seal:
`
`a. Reynold’s Reply in Support of Reynold’s Motions in Limine 1-3 (Dkt.
`1054);
`
`b. Reynold’s Reply in Support of Reynolds’s Motion in Limine No. 7 (Dkt.
`1061);
`
`c. Reynolds’s Reply in Support of Reynolds’s Motion in Limine No. 9 (Dkt.
`1067);
`
`d. Reynolds’s Reply in Support of Reynolds’s Motion in Limine No. 10 (Dkt.
`1072);
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 1127 Filed 03/07/22 Page 3 of 4 PagelD# 30509
`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 1127 Filed 03/07/22 Page 3 of 4 PageID# 30509
`
`e. Reynolds’s Reply in Support of Reynolds’s Motion in Limine No. 11 (Dkt.
`1077);
`
`f. Reynolds’s Reply in Support of Reynolds’s Motion to Exclude Certain
`Expert Opinions of Joseph C. McAlexander (Dkt. 1083); and
`
`g. Reynolds’s Reply in Support of Reynolds’s Motion to Exclude the
`Testimony of Paul K. Meyer and Accompanying Exhibit 5 (Dkt. 1088).
`
`Reynolds further seeks to file entirely underseal:
`
`h. Exhibits 1-4 accompanying Reynold’s Reply in Support of Reynold’s Motions in
`Limine 1-3 (Dkt. 1054);
`
`i. Exhibit 2 accompanying Reynold’s Reply in Support of Reynolds’s Motion in
`Limine No. 7 (Dkt. 1061);
`
`j. Exhibits 1-4 accompanying Reynolds’s Reply in Support of Reynolds’s Motion in
`Limine No. 9 (Dkt. 1067);
`
`k. Exhibit 1 accompanying Reynolds’s Reply in Support of Reynolds’s Motion to
`Exclude Certain Expert Opinions of Joseph C. McAlexander (Dkt. 1083); and
`
`|. Exhibits 1-4 accompanying Reynolds’s Reply in Support of Reynolds’s Motion to
`Exclude the Testimony of Paul K. Meyer (Dkt. 1088).'
`
`This selective and narrow protection of confidential material constitutes the least drastic method
`
`ofshielding 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
`
`information that is confidential to Reynolds and PMI/Altria.
`
`Jd. at *4. The information that
`
`Reynolds seeks to seal includes confidential, proprietary, and competitively sensitive business
`
`information of PMI/Altria and/orthird parties, each of which could face harm if such information
`
`were to be released publicly. Specifically, the sensitive information that Reynolds moves for
`
`'! These memorandum and exhibits are collectively referred to as “Memorandums”and “Exhibits,”
`respectively, throughout.
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 1127 Filed 03/07/22 Page 4 of 4 PagelD# 30510
`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 1127 Filed 03/07/22 Page 4 of 4 PageID# 30510
`
`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 the Memorandums and accompanying
`
`Exhibits under seal, with a publicly filed version containing strictly limited redactions. These
`
`Memorandums 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 informationthatis “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.
`
`Therefore, based on the findings above, for good cause shown, it is hereby
`
`ORDEREDthat the motion is GRANTED, and Reynolds is granted leave to file a
`
`REDACTEDversion of the Memorandumsand accompanying Exhibits;
`
`And to file UNDER SEALan unredacted version of Memorandums and accompanying
`
`Exhibits;
`
`And FURTHER ORDEREDthat the unredacted version of the Memorandums and
`
`accompanying Exhibits shall remain SEALED until further order of the Court:
`
`ENTEREDthis 7th day of March, 2022.
`
`Alexandria, Virginia
`
`