Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 1337 Filed 06/13/22 Page 1 of 5 PageID# 33665
`
`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
`
`
`
`MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PHILIP MORRIS’ MOTION FOR
`LEAVE TO FILE DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL
`
`Pursuant to Local Civil Rule 5(C), Plaintiff Philip Morris Products S.A. (“Philip Morris”)
`
`respectfully moves the Court for leave to file its Motion in Limine to Preclude Reynolds’ Improper
`
`Demonstratives (“Motion”) and Exhibit 1 thereto (“Exhibit”) under seal.
`
`I.
`
`DESCRIPTION OF MATERIALS SOUGHT TO BE SEALED
`
`Philip Morris respectfully seeks leave to file the following document under seal:
`
`• An unredacted version of its Motion in Limine to Preclude Reynolds’ Improper
`Demonstratives (“Motion”); and
`• Exhibit 1 to Philip Morris’ Motion, which are the demonstrative slides for the direct
`examination of Dr. Jeffrey Suhling, served by Reynolds on June 12, 2022.
`
`II.
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`Although there is a general presumption that the public has the right to access documents
`
`in the files of the courts, this presumption may be overcome “if the public’s right of access is
`
`outweighed by competing interests.” Ashcraft v. Conoco, Inc., 218 F.3d 288, 302 (4th Cir. 2000)
`
`(citation omitted); Stone v. Univ. of Md. Med. Sys. Corp., 855 F.2d 178, 180 (4th Cir. 1988). To
`
`determine whether the interests in sealing the records outweigh the public’s right of access, a court
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 1337 Filed 06/13/22 Page 2 of 5 PageID# 33666
`
`must follow a three-step process: (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) articulate specific reasons and factual findings supporting its decision to
`
`seal. Ashcraft, 218 F.3d at 302; Adams v. Object Innovation, Inc., No. 11-cv-00272, 2011 WL
`
`7042224, at *4 (E.D. Va. Dec. 5, 2011), report and recommendation adopted, 2012 WL 135428
`
`(E.D. Va. Jan. 17, 2012). All three requirements are satisfied here.
`
`First, the public has received notice of the request to seal and will have a reasonable
`
`opportunity to object. In accordance with Local Civil Rule 5 procedures, this sealing motion was
`
`publicly docketed, satisfying the first requirement. Reynolds will have an opportunity to respond,
`
`and once the “public has had ample opportunity to object” to Philip Morris’ motion and “the Court
`
`has received no objections,” the first Ashcraft requirement may be deemed satisfied. See GTSI
`
`Corp. v. Wildflower Int’l, Inc., No. 09-cv-00123, 2009 WL 1248114, at *9 (E.D. Va. Apr. 30,
`
`2009); U.S. ex rel. Carter v. Halliburton Co., No. 10-cv-00864, 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.”).
`
`Second, Philip Morris seeks to seal and to redact from the public record only information
`
`that the parties must keep confidential pursuant to the stipulated protective order. Philip Morris
`
`will file publicly a redacted version of its Motion in addition to a sealed version. Moreover, the
`
`exhibits filed under seal contain competitively sensitive information the disclosure of which would
`
`cause harm. This selective and narrow protection of confidential material constitutes “the least
`
`drastic method of shielding the information at issue.” Adams, 2011 WL 7042224, at *4. The
`
`public has no legitimate interest in information that is confidential to Philip Morris and/or
`
`Reynolds. See Adams, 2011 WL 7042224, at *4 (“[T]here is no legitimate public interest in
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 1337 Filed 06/13/22 Page 3 of 5 PageID# 33667
`
`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 Philip Morris
`
`seeks to seal and redact includes confidential, proprietary, and competitively sensitive business
`
`information of Reynolds, and Reynolds could face harm if such information were released
`
`publicly.
`
`Third, there is support for filing portions of Philip Morris’ Motion under seal, with a
`
`publicly filed version containing strictly limited redactions. As an initial matter, the stipulated
`
`protective order requires that this information remain confidential. And the redacted portions of
`
`the Motion only pertain to this confidential information. Moreover, the Exhibit filed under seal
`
`contain information that Reynolds has designated as competitively sensitive business information.
`
`Sealing these materials is therefore proper because the public’s interest in access is outweighed by
`
`a party’s interest in “preserving confidentiality” of limited amounts of confidential information
`
`that is “normally unavailable to the public.” Flexible Benefits Council v. Feltman, No. 08-cv-371,
`
`2008 WL 4924711, at *1; U.S. ex rel. Carter, 2011 WL 2077799, at *3.
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`
`Philip Morris respectfully requests that the Court grant this motion and enter the attached
`
`proposed Order.
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 1337 Filed 06/13/22 Page 4 of 5 PageID# 33668
`
`Dated: June 13, 2022
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`/s/ Maximilian A. Grant
`Maximilian A. Grant (VSB No. 91792)
`max.grant@lw.com
`Lawrence J. Gotts (VSB No. 25337)
`lawrence.gotts@lw.com
`Matthew J. Moore (pro hac vice)
`matthew.moore@lw.com
`Jamie Underwood
`jamie.underwood@lw.com (pro hac vice)
`LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
`555 Eleventh Street, N.W., Ste. 1000
`Washington, DC 20004
`Tel: (202) 637-2200; Fax: (202) 637-2201
`
`Clement J. Naples (pro hac vice)
`clement.naples@lw.com
`LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
`885 Third Avenue
`New York, NY 10022-4834
`Tel: (212) 906-1200; Fax: (212) 751-4864
`
`Gregory K. Sobolski (pro hac vice)
`Greg.sobolski@lw.com
`LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
`505 Montgomery Street, Suite 2000
`San Francisco, CA 94111
`Tel: (415) 391-0600; Fax: (415) 395-8095
`
`Brenda L. Danek (pro hac vice)
`brenda.danek@lw.com
`LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
`330 North Wabash Avenue, Suite 2800
`Chicago, IL 60611
`Tel: (312) 876-7700; Fax: (312) 993-9767
`
`Counsel for Plaintiff Philip Morris Products
`S.A.
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 1337 Filed 06/13/22 Page 5 of 5 PageID# 33669
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that on this 13th day of June, 2022, a true and correct copy of the foregoing
`
`was served using the Court’s CM/ECF system, with electronic notification of such filing to all
`
`counsel of record:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Maximilian A. Grant
`Maximilian A. Grant (VSB No. 91792)
`LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
`555 Eleventh Street, N.W., Suite 1000
`Washington, DC 20004
`Telephone: (202) 637-2200
`Facsimile: (202) 637-2201
`Email: max.grant@lw.com
`
`
`Counsel for Plaintiff Philip Morris Products
`S.A.
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`