Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 1187 Filed 04/08/22 Page 1 of 4 PagelD# 31490
`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 1187 Filed 04/08/22 Page 1 of 4 PageID# 31490
`
`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,
`
`ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; PHILIP
`MORRIS USAINC.; and PHILIP MORRIS
`PRODUCTSS.A.,
`
`Defendants and Counterclaim Plaintiffs.
`
`
`
`Case No. 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB
`
`ORDER GRANTING PM/ALTRIA’S MOTION TO SEAL
`
`This matter is before the Court on the motion (Dkt. 1172) filed by Philip Morris Products
`
`S.A., Philip Morris USA Inc., and Altria Client Services, LLC (collectively, “PM/Altria”) to seal
`
`un-redacted versions of PM/Altria’s Reply In Support Of PM/Altria’s Motion to Show Cause Why
`
`Sanctions Should Not be Imposed and accompanying Exhibits 1-3 pursuant to Federal Rule of
`
`Civil Procedure 5.2(d) and Local Civil Rule 5(C). Because the documents that PM/Altria seeksto
`
`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 requestto
`
`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
`
`supporting its decision to seal the documents and for rejecting the alternatives.” Ashcraft v.
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 1187 Filed 04/08/22 Page 2 of 4 PagelD# 31491
`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 1187 Filed 04/08/22 Page 2 of 4 PageID# 31491
`
`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 has filed 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. G7S/ 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.
`
`May24, 2011) (“[T]he parties provided public notice of the request to seal that allowedinterested
`
`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 a publicly redacted version ofits
`
`Reply In Support Of Motion to Show Cause Why Sanctions Should Not Be Imposed an (DKt.
`
`1171), in addition to a sealed version (Dkt. 1174), and has redacted only those limited portionsit
`
`seeks to seal. PM/Altria requested to have only Exhibits 1-3 filed 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. 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 ofshielding the informationat 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
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 1187 Filed 04/08/22 Page 3 of 4 PagelD# 31492
`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 1187 Filed 04/08/22 Page 3 of 4 PageID# 31492
`
`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 leave to file underseal,
`
`and to redact from publicly filed versions,
`
`includes proprietary and commercially sensitive
`
`business, financial, and design information of Reynolds and/or third parties:
`e
`PM/Altria’s Reply In Support of PM/Altria’s Motion to Show Cause Why
`
`Sanctions Should Not Be Imposed;
`
`e Exhibit 1, an excerpt from a license agreementdraft;
`
`e Exhibit 2, an excerpt from a license agreement draft; and
`
`« Exhibit 3, correspondence between counsel.
`
`3.
`
`There is support for filing portions of PM/Altria’s Reply In Support of PM/Altria’s
`
`Motion to Show Cause Why Sanctions Should Not Be Imposed and accompanying Exhibits 1-3
`
`under seal. PM/Altria’s Reply In Support of PM/Altria’s Motion to Show Cause Why Sanctions
`
`Should Not Be Imposed and accompanying Exhibits 1-3 contain materials that fall 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
`
`amountof confidential 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
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 1187 Filed 04/08/22 Page 4 of 4 PagelD# 31493
`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 1187 Filed 04/08/22 Page 4 of 4 PageID# 31493
`
`ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED, and PM/Altria is granted leave to file a
`
`REDACTEDversion of PM/Altria’s Reply In Support of PM/Altria’s Motion to Show Cause
`
`WhySanctions Should Not Be Imposed.
`
`And to file UNDER SEAL un-redacted versions of PM/Altria’s Reply In Support of
`
`PM/Altria’s Motion to Show Cause Why Sanctions Should Not Be Imposed and accompanying
`
`Exhibits 1-3.
`
`And FURTHER ORDERED that un-redacted versions of PM/Altria’s Reply In Support
`
`of PM/Altria’s Motion to Show Cause Why Sanctions Should Not Be Imposed and accompanying
`
`Exhibits 1-3 shall remain SEALED until further order of the Court.
`
`ENTEREDthis 8th day of April, 2022.
`
`Alexandria, Virginia
`
`
`
`i LfgpesaCarrGIl Buchanan
`
`
`
`msted State Mavistrate
`Tudec
`THERESA CARROLL BUCHANAN
`UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
`
`/
`
`ie
`
`