`
`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,
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`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-LO-TCB
`
`
`
`[PROPOSED] 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
`
`Exhibit 3 to their Response to Reynolds’ Motion In Limine Regarding Menthol Products and
`
`Allegations against Reynolds in Product-Liability Cases (“Exhibit”) 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
`
`FINDS as follows:
`
`1.
`
`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 1279-1 Filed 06/07/22 Page 2 of 3 PageID# 32922
`
`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 seeks to seal and from the public record only information designated by
`
`the parties as confidential. This selective and narrow protection of confidential 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 information of the parties and/or third 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 Exhibit under seal. The Exhibit
`
`contains 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 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,
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 1279-1 Filed 06/07/22 Page 3 of 3 PageID# 32923
`
`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
`
`ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED, and PMI/Altria are granted leave to file
`
`UNDER SEAL an unredacted version of their Response and Exhibit 3 thereto.
`
`And FURTHER ORDERED that the unredacted version of PMI/Altria’s Exhibit 3 thereto
`
`shall remain SEALED until further order of the Court.
`
`
`
`
`
`ENTERED this ____ day of __________, 2022.
`
`Alexandria, Virginia
`
`__________________________________
`
`3
`
`