Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 1186 Filed 04/08/22 Page 1 of 3 PageID# 31487
`
`
`
`
`
`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-LO-TCB
`
`v.
`
`ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; PHILIP
`
`MORRIS USA INC.; and PHILIP MORRIS
`PRODUCTS S.A.
`
`Defendants and Counterclaim
`
`Plaintiffs.
`
`
`
`ORDER GRANTING PMI/ALTRIA'S MOTION TO SEAL
`
`
`
`This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs Altria Client Services, LLC, Philip Morris
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`USA Inc., and Philip Morris Products S.A. ("PMI/Altria") motion to file their Motion to Show
`
`
`
`and Exhibits 2-5, 10, ("Motion to Show Cause") Cause Why Sanctions Should Not be Imposed
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`and 17 thereto ("Exhibits") under seal pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2(d) and
`
`
`
`
`
`Local Civil Rule 5(C). (Dkt. 1161.)
`
`
`
`
`
`Upon consideration of PMI/Altria's motion to seal and its
`
`
`
`
`
`memorandum in support ("Sealing Motion"), the Court FINDS as follows:
`
`
`
`
`
`1. The public has received notice of the request to seal and has had reasonable
`
`
`
`opportunity to object.
`
`
`
`
`
`PMI/Altria's Sealing Motion was publicly docketed in accordance with
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Local Civil Rule 5. Defendants RAI Strategic Holdings, Inc. and R.J. Reynolds Vapor Co.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`( collectively, "RJR") have had an opportunity to respond. The "public has had ample opportunity
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`to object" to PMI/Altria's Sealing Motion and, since "the Court has received no objections," the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`has been first requirement under Ashcraft v. Conoco, Inc., 218 F .3d 288, 302 ( 4th Cir. 2000),
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 1186 Filed 04/08/22 Page 2 of 3 PagelD# 31488
`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 1186 Filed 04/08/22 Page 2 of 3 PageID# 31488
`
`satisfied. G7SI Corp. v. WildflowerInt'l, Inc., No. 09-cv-123, 2009 WL 1248114, at *9 (E.D. Va.
`
`Apr. 30, 2009); see also U.S. ex rel. Carter v. Halliburton Co., No. 10-cv-864, 2011 WL 2077799,
`
`at *3 (E.D. Va. May 24, 2011) (“[Tjhe parties provided public notice of the request to seal that
`
`allowed interested parties a reasonable opportunity to object—nearly two weeks.”).
`
`2.
`
`PMI/Altria seek to seal and to redact from the public record only information
`
`designated by the parties and/or third parties as confidential. PMI/Altria will file publicly a
`
`redacted version of their Motion and Exhibits, in addition to a sealed version, and will redact only
`
`those limited portionsit seeks to seal. This selective and narrow protection ofconfidential material
`
`constitutes the least drastic method of shielding the information at issue. See Adams v. Object
`
`Innovation, Inc., No. 11-cv-272, 2011 WL 7042224, at *4 (E.D. Va. Dec. 5, 2011) (finding that
`
`plaintiffs’ “proposal to redact only the proprietary and confidential information, rather than seal
`the entirety ofhis declaration, constitutes the least drastic method ofshielding the informationat
`
`issue”). The public has no legitimate interest in the parties’ confidential information. See id. at
`
`*4 (“{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 PMI/Altria seek to seal includes confidential, proprietary,
`
`and competitively sensitive business information of the parties and/orthird parties, each ofwhich
`
`could face harm if such information were to be released publicly.
`
`3.
`
`There is support for filing portions of PMI/Altria’s Motion and Exhibits, with a
`
`publicly filed version containing strictly limited redactions. The Motion and Exhibits contain
`
`material designated confidential under the stipulated protective order. Accordingly, PMI/Altria
`
`are required to file this material under seal pursuant to the stipulated protective order. Placing
`
`these materials under seal is proper because the public’s interest in access is outweighed by a
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 1186 Filed 04/08/22 Page 3 of 3 PageID# 31489
`
`
`
`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-371,
`
`2008 WL 4924711, at* I (E.D. Ya. Nov. 13, 2008); U.S. ex rel. Carter,
`
`
`2011 WL 2077799, at *3.
`
`
`
`
`
`Therefore, based on the findings above, for good cause show, it is hereby
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED, and PMI/Altria are granted leave to file a
`
`
`
`2-5, I 0, and 17 thereto. REDACTED version of their Motion to Show Cause and Exhibits
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`And to file UNDER SEAL an unredacted version of their Motion to Show Cause and
`
`
`
`Exhibits 2-5, I 0, and 17 thereto.
`
`
`
`
`
`And FURTHER ORDERED that the unredacted version of the Motion to Show Cause
`
`
`
`
`
`order of the Court. and Exhibits 2-5, I 0, and 17 thereto shall remain SEALED until further
`
`
`
`
`
`ENTERED this 8th day of April, 2022.
`
`
`
`Alexandria, Virginia
`
`3
`
`