`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 1239 Filed 05/25/22 Page 1 of 3 PageID# 32370
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
`ALEXANDRIADIVISION
`
`RAI STRATEGIC HOLDINGS,INC. and
`RJ. REYNOLDS VAPOR COMPANY,
`
`Plaintiffs and Counterclaim
`Defendants,
`
`Vv.
`
`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 Reply In Support Of PMI/Altria’s Objections To Magistrate Judge Buchanan’s Order On
`
`PMI/Altria’s Motion To Show Cause (“Reply”) and Exhibits 1-3 thereto (“Exhibits”) underseal
`
`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:
`
`l.
`
`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
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 1239 Filed 05/25/22 Page 2 of 3 PagelD# 32371
`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 1239 Filed 05/25/22 Page 2 of 3 PageID# 32371
`
`first requirement under Ashcraft v. Conoco, Inc., 218 F .3d 288, 302 (4th Cir. 2000), has been
`
`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 Reply 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 of his declaration, constitutes the least drastic method of shielding the information at
`
`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 informationof the parties and/orthird parties, each of which
`
`could face harm if such information were to be released publicly.
`3.
`There is support for filing portions of PMI/Altria’s Reply and Exhibits, with a
`
`publicly filed version containing strictly limited redactions. The Reply and Exhibits contain
`material designated confidential under the stipulated protective order. Accordingly, PMI/Altria
`
`are required to file this material under seal pursuantto the stipulated protective order. Placing
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 1239 Filed 05/25/22 Page 3 of 3 PagelD# 32372
`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 1239 Filed 05/25/22 Page 3 of 3 PageID# 32372
`
`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 ofconfidential information
`
`that is “normally unavailable to the public.” Flexible Benefits Council v. Feltman, No. 08-cv-371,
`
`2008 WL 4924711, at *1 (E.D. Va. 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
`
`ORDEREDthat the motion (Dkt. 1216) is GRANTED, and PMI/Altria are granted
`
`leave to file a REDACTEDversionof their Reply and Exhibits 1-3 thereto.
`
`And to file UNDER SEAL an unredacted version of their Reply and Exhibits 1-3 thereto.
`
`And FURTHER ORDERED that the unredacted version of PMI/Altria’s Reply and
`
`Exhibits 1-3 thereto shall remain SEALED until further order of the Court.
`
`ENTEREDthis 24th day of May, 2022.
`
`Alexandria, Virginia
`
`
`
`\
`
`)
`
`
`
`
`/
`Is}
`a
`
`SQUATAIXGistRATEJUDGE
`
`