`
`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.
`
`No. 1:20-cv-393-LMB-TCB
`
`
`
`[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING PHILIP MORRIS’ MOTION TO SEAL
`
`This matter is before the Court on the motion filed by Plaintiff Philip Morris Products S.A.
`
`
`
`(“Philip Morris”) to file its Brief in Support of Philip Morris’ Motion For a Permanent Injunction
`
`or, Alternatively, an Ongoing Royalty (“Brief”) and Exhibits 4-5, 11, 13-20, 22-24, 26-27, 30-31,
`
`34-36, 38, 40-44, 47-48, 51, and 56 thereto (“Exhibits”) under seal pursuant to Federal Rule of
`
`Civil Procedure 5.2(d) and Local Civil Rule 5(C). Upon consideration of Philip Morris’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. Philip Morris’ Sealing Motion was publicly docketed in accordance with
`
`Local Civil Rule 5. Defendant R.J. Reynolds Vapor Co. (“Reynolds”) has had an opportunity to
`
`respond. The “public has had ample opportunity to object” to Philip Morris’ 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.
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LMB-TCB Document 1408-1 Filed 08/12/22 Page 2 of 3 PageID# 35315
`
`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.
`
`Philip Morris seeks to seal and to redact from the public record only information
`
`designated by the parties as confidential. Philip Morris will file publicly a redacted version of its
`
`Brief and Exhibits, 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 Philip Morris seeks 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 Philip Morris’ Brief and Exhibits, with a
`
`publicly filed version containing strictly limited redactions. The Brief and Exhibits contain
`
`material designated confidential under the stipulated protective order. Accordingly, Philip Morris
`
`is 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
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LMB-TCB Document 1408-1 Filed 08/12/22 Page 3 of 3 PageID# 35316
`
`“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
`
`ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED, and Philip Morris is granted leave to file a
`
`REDACTED version of its Brief and Exhibits 4-5, 11, 13-20, 22-24, 26-27, 30-31, 34-36, 38, 40-
`
`44, 47-48, 51, and 56 thereto.
`
`And to file UNDER SEAL an unredacted version of its Brief and Exhibits 4-5, 11, 13-20,
`
`22-24, 26-27, 30-31, 34-36, 38, 40-44, 47-48, 51, and 56 thereto.
`
`And FURTHER ORDERED that the unredacted version of Philip Morris’ Brief and
`
`Exhibits 4-5, 11, 13-20, 22-24, 26-27, 30-31, 34-36, 38, 40-44, 47-48, 51, and 56 thereto shall
`
`remain SEALED until further order of the Court.
`
`
`
`
`
`ENTERED this ____ day of __________, 2022.
`
`Alexandria, Virginia
`
`__________________________________
`
`3
`
`