`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
`ALEXANDRIA DIVISION
`
`
`
`v.
`
`RAI STRATEGIC HOLDINGS, INC. and
`R.J. REYNOLDS VAPOR COMPANY,
`
`Plaintiffs and Counterclaim Defendants,
`
`
`
`ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; PHILIP
`MORRIS USA INC.; and PHILIP MORRIS
`PRODUCTS S.A.
`
`Defendants and Counterclaim Plaintiffs.
`
`
`
`Civil Action No. 1:20-cv-393
`
`[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING REYNOLDS’ MOTION TO SEAL
`
`This matter is before the Court on the motion (Dkt. 1205) filed by RAI Strategic Holdings,
`
`Inc., and R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company (collectively, “Reynolds”) to file Reynolds’ Opposition
`
`to PM/Altria’s Objections to Magistrate Judge Buchanan’s Order Denying Motion to Show
`
`Cause Why Sanctions Should Not Be Imposed (Dkt. 1207) under seal pursuant to Federal Rule
`
`of Civil Procedure 5.2(d) and Local Civil Rule 5(C). Because the document that Reynolds seeks
`
`to seal contain confidential, proprietary, and competitively sensitive business information of
`
`Plaintiffs’ Altria Client Services LLC (“ACS”), Philip Morris USA Inc. (“PM USA”), and Philip
`
`Morris Products S.A. (“PMP”) (collectively, “PMI/Altria”) and/or third parties, PMI/Altria filed
`
`a memorandum in support of Reynolds’ 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) consider less drastic
`
`alternatives to sealing the documents, and (3) provide specific reasons and factual findings
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 1224-1 Filed 05/06/22 Page 2 of 4 PageID# 32290
`
`supporting its decision to seal the documents and for rejecting the alternatives.” Ashcraft v.
`
`Conoco, Inc., 218 F.3d 282, 288 (4th Cir. 2000) (internal citations omitted). Upon consideration
`
`of Reynolds’ 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. Reynolds’ sealing motion was publicly docketed in accordance with Local
`
`Civil Rule 5. Defendants have filed a memorandum in support of sealing. The “public has had
`
`ample opportunity to object” to Reynolds’ motion and, since “the Court has received no
`
`objections,” the first requirement under Ashcraft, 218 F.3d at 302, has been satisfied. GTSI Corp.
`
`v. Wildflower Int’l, Inc., No. 1:09-cv-123-JCC, 2009 WL 1248114, at *9 (E.D. Va. Apr. 30,
`
`2009); U.S. ex rel Carter v. Halliburton Co., No. 1:10-cv-864-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.
`
`Reynolds seeks to seal and redact from the public record only information
`
`designated by the parties and/or third parties as confidential. Reynolds has filed publicly a
`
`redacted version of Reynolds’ Opposition to PM/Altria’s Objections to Magistrate Judge
`
`Buchanan’s Order Denying Motion to Show Cause Why Sanctions Should Not Be Imposed, in
`
`addition to a sealed version, and has redacted only those limited portions that Reynolds seeks to
`
`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. 3:11-cv-272-
`
`REP-DWS, 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
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 1224-1 Filed 05/06/22 Page 3 of 4 PageID# 32291
`
`legitimate interest in information that is confidential to PMI/Altria and/or third parties. Id. at *4.
`
`The information that Reynolds seeks to seal includes confidential, proprietary, and competitively
`
`sensitive business information of PMI/Altria and/or third parties, each of which could face harm
`
`if such information were to be released publicly. Specifically, the sensitive information that
`
`Reynolds moves for 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 Reynolds’ Opposition to PM/Altria’s
`
`Objections to Magistrate Judge Buchanan’s Order Denying Motion to Show Cause Why
`
`Sanctions Should Not Be Imposed under seal, with a publicly filed version containing strictly
`
`limited redactions. Reynolds’ Opposition to PM/Altria’s Objections to Magistrate Judge
`
`Buchanan’s Order Denying Motion to Show Cause Why Sanctions Should Not Be Imposed
`
`contains 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 information that is
`
`“normally unavailable to the public.” Flexible Benefits Council v. Feltman, No. 1:08-cv-00371-
`
`JCC, 2008 WL 4924711, at *1 (E.D. Va. Nov. 13, 2008); see also, e.g., U.S. ex rel. Carter, 2011
`
`WL 2077799, at *3.
`
`Therefore, based on the findings above, for good cause shown, it is hereby
`
`ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED, and Reynolds is granted leave to file a
`
`REDACTED version of Reynolds’ Opposition to PM/Altria’s Objections to Magistrate Judge
`
`Buchanan’s Order Denying Motion to Show Cause Why Sanctions Should Not Be Imposed.
`
`And to file UNDER SEAL an unredacted version of Reynolds’ Opposition to
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 1224-1 Filed 05/06/22 Page 4 of 4 PageID# 32292
`
`PM/Altria’s Objections to Magistrate Judge Buchanan’s Order Denying Motion to Show Cause
`
`Why Sanctions Should Not Be Imposed.
`
`And FURTHER ORDERED that the unredacted version of Reynolds’ Opposition to
`
`PM/Altria’s Objections to Magistrate Judge Buchanan’s Order Denying Motion to Show Cause
`
`Why Sanctions Should Not Be Imposed shall remain SEALED until further order of the Court.
`
`
`
`ENTERED this ____ day of __________, 2020.
`
`Alexandria, Virginia
`
`
`
`__________________________________
`
`4
`
`