Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 1320-1 Filed 06/11/22 Page 1 of 3 PageID# 33506
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
`ALEXANDRIA DIVISION
`
`
`
`PHILIP MORRIS PRODUCTS S.A.,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`R.J. REYNOLDS VAPOR COMPANY,
`
`Defendant.
`
`Civil Action No. 1:20-cv-393-LO-TCB
`
`
`
`[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING PMP’S MOTION TO SEAL
`
`This matter is before the Court on the motion filed by Plaintiff Philip Morris Products S.A.
`
`
`
`(“PMP”) to file their Motion to Reynolds’ Judgement as a Matter of Law of No Willfulness
`
`(“Motion”) under seal pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2(d) and Local Civil Rule
`
`5(C). Upon consideration of PMP’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. PMP’s Sealing Motion was publicly docketed in accordance with Local
`
`Civil Rule 5. Defendant R.J. Reynolds Vapor Co. (“RJR”) have had an opportunity to respond.
`
`The “public has had ample opportunity to object” to PMP’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 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
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 1320-1 Filed 06/11/22 Page 2 of 3 PageID# 33507
`
`notice of the request to seal that allowed interested parties a reasonable opportunity to object—
`
`nearly two weeks.”).
`
`2.
`
`PMP seek to seal and to redact from the public record only information designated
`
`by the parties and/or third parties as confidential. PMP will file publicly a redacted version of their
`
`Motion 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 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
`
`PMP 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 PMP’s Motion, with a publicly filed version
`
`containing strictly limited redactions. The Motion contains material designated confidential under
`
`the stipulated protective order. Accordingly, PMP 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.”
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 1320-1 Filed 06/11/22 Page 3 of 3 PageID# 33508
`
`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
`
`ORDERED that the Motion is GRANTED, and PMP is granted leave to file a
`
`REDACTED version of their Motion.
`
`And to file UNDER SEAL an unredacted version of their Motion.
`
`And FURTHER ORDERED that the unredacted version of PMP’s Motion shall remain
`
`SEALED until further order of the Court.
`
`
`
`
`
`ENTERED this ____ day of __________, 2022.
`
`Alexandria, Virginia
`
`__________________________________
`
`3
`
`