Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 1198 Filed 04/25/22 Page 1 of 3 PagelD# 31715
`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 1198 Filed 04/25/22 Page 1 of 3 PageID# 31715
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
`ALEXANDRIADIVISION
`
`RAI STRATEGIC HOLDINGS,INC. and
`RJ. REYNOLDS VAPOR COMPANY,
`
`Plaintiffs and Counterclaim
`Defendants,
`
`v.
`
`ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; PHILIP
`MORRIS USAINC.; and PHILIP MORRIS
`PRODUCTSS.A.
`
`Defendants and Counterclaim
`Plaintiffs.
`
`
`
`Civil Action No. 1:20-cv-393-LO-TCB
`
`ORDER GRANTING PMI/ALTRIA’S MOTION TO SEAL
`
`This matter is before the Court on the motion filed by Plaintiffs Altria Client Services,
`
`LLC,Philip Morris USA Inc., and Philip Morris Products S.A. (collectively, “PMI/Altria”) to file
`
`their Objections to Magistrate Judge Buchanan’s Order on PMI/Altria’s Motion to Show Cause
`
`(“Motion”) and Exhibit A thereto (“Exhibit A”) under seal pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
`
`Procedure 5.2(d) and Local Civil Rule 5(C). Upon consideration of PMI/Altria’s motion to seal
`
`and its memorandum in support thereof(“Sealing Motion’), the Court hereby FINDSas follows:
`
`I.
`
`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
`
`first requirement under Ashcraft v. Conoco, Inc., 218 F .3d 288, 302 (4th Cir. 2000), has been
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 1198 Filed 04/25/22 Page 2 of 3 PagelD# 31716
`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 1198 Filed 04/25/22 Page 2 of 3 PageID# 31716
`
`satisfied. GTSI Corp. v. Wildflower Int'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) (“[T]he 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 Exhibit A, in addition to a sealed version, and will redact
`
`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. See Adamsv.
`
`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 of his declaration, constitutes the least drastic method of shielding the information
`
`at issue”). The public has nolegitimate 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/Alltria seek to seal includes confidential, proprietary,
`
`and competitively sensitive business information of the parties and/orthird parties, each of which
`
`could face harm if such information were to be released publicly.
`
`3.
`
`There is support forfiling portions of PMI/Altria’s Motion and Exhibit A thereto,
`
`with a publicly filed version containing strictly limited redactions. The Motion and Exhibit A
`
`thereto 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 undersealis proper because the public’s interest in access
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 1198 Filed 04/25/22 Page 3 of 3 PagelD# 31717
`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 1198 Filed 04/25/22 Page 3 of 3 PageID# 31717
`
`is outweighed by a party’s interest
`
`in “preserving confidentiality” of the limited amount of
`
`confidential information that is “normally unavailable to the public.” Flexible Benefits Councilv.
`
`Feltman, No. 08-cv-371, 2008 WL 4924711, at *1 (E.D. Va. Nov. 13, 2008); US. ex rel. Carter,
`
`2011 WL 2077799,at *3.
`
`Therefore, based on the findings above, for good cause show, it is hereby
`
`ORDEREDthat the motion (Dkt. 1193) is GRANTED, and PMI/Altria are granted leave to
`
`file aREDACTEDversion of their Motion and Exhibit A thereto. (Dkt. 1191.)
`
`And to file UNDER SEALan unredacted version of their Motion and Exhibit A thereto.
`
`And FURTHER ORDEREDthat the unredacted version of PMI/Altria’s Motion and
`
`Exhibit A thereto (Dkt. 1195) shall remain SEALED until further order of the Court.
`
`ENTERED this 25th day of April, 2022.
`
`
`
`Alexandria, Virginia
`
`