Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 1225-1 Filed 05/10/22 Page 1 of 4 PageID# 32301
`
`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.
`
`Case No. 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB
`
`
`[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING PM/ALTRIA’S MOTION TO SEAL
`
`This matter is before the Court on the motion (Dkt. 1216) 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 Objections to Magistrate
`
`Judge Buchanan’s Order on PM/Altria’s Motion to Show Cause 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 seeks to 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 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 1225-1 Filed 05/10/22 Page 2 of 4 PageID# 32302
`
`supporting its decision to seal the documents and for rejecting the alternatives.” Ashcraft v.
`
`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. GTSI 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.
`
`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.
`
`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 of its
`
`Reply In Support of PM/Altria’s Objections to Magistrate Judge Buchanan’s Order on PM/Altria’s
`
`Motion to Show Cause (Dkt. 1215), in addition to a sealed version (Dkt. 1218), and has redacted
`
`only those limited portions it 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 of shielding the information at issue.”). The public has no
`
`2
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 1225-1 Filed 05/10/22 Page 3 of 4 PageID# 32303
`
`legitimate interest in information that is confidential to Reynolds. Id. (“[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
`
`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 moves for leave
`
`to file under seal, and to redact from publicly filed versions, includes proprietary and commercially
`
`sensitive business, financial, and design information of Reynolds and/or third parties:
`
`• PM/Altria’s Reply In Support of PM/Altria’s Objections to Magistrate Judge
`
`Buchanan’s Order on PM/Altria’s Motion to Show Cause;
`
`• Exhibit 1, an excerpt from an expert report;
`
`• Exhibit 2, an excerpt from an expert report; and
`
`• Exhibit 3, a declaration from a third-party’s counsel.
`
`3.
`
`There is support for filing portions of PM/Altria’s Reply In Support of PM/Altria’s
`
`Objections to Magistrate Judge Buchanan’s Order on PM/Altria’s Motion to Show Cause and
`
`accompanying Exhibits 1-3 under seal. PM/Altria’s Reply In Support of PM/Altria’s Objections
`
`to Magistrate Judge Buchanan’s Order on PM/Altria’s Motion to Show Cause 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 amount of 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.
`
`3
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 1225-1 Filed 05/10/22 Page 4 of 4 PageID# 32304
`
`Therefore, based on the findings above, for good cause shown, it is hereby
`
`ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED, and PM/Altria is granted leave to file a
`
`REDACTED version of its Reply In Support of PM/Altria’s Objections to Magistrate Judge
`
`Buchanan’s Order on PM/Altria’s Motion to Show Cause.
`
`And to file UNDER SEAL un-redacted versions of PM/Altria’s Reply In Support of
`
`PM/Altria’s Objections to Magistrate Judge Buchanan’s Order on PM/Altria’s Motion to Show
`
`Cause and accompanying Exhibits 1-3.
`
`And FURTHER ORDERED that un-redacted versions of PM/Altria’s Reply In Support
`
`of PM/Altria’s Objections to Magistrate Judge Buchanan’s Order on PM/Altria’s Motion to Show
`
`Cause and accompanying Exhibits 1-3 shall remain SEALED until further order of the Court.
`
`
`
`ENTERED this _____ day of _________________, 2022.
`
`Alexandria, Virginia
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`__________________________________________
`
`THERESA CARROLL BUCHANAN
`
`UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
`
`4
`
`
`