`
`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.
`
`Case No. 1:20-cv-00393-LMB-WEF
`
`
`
`
`
`PHILIP MORRIS’ MEMORANDUM IN RESPONSE TO, AND IN SUPPORT OF,
`REYNOLDS’ MOTION TO SEAL (DKT. 1419)
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LMB-WEF Document 1424 Filed 09/09/22 Page 2 of 7 PageID# 36866
`
`Pursuant to Rule 5.2(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Civil Rule 5(C),
`
`Plaintiff Philip Morris Products S.A. (“Philip Morris”) respectfully submits this memorandum in
`
`response to, and in support of, Defendant R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company’s (“Reynolds”) Motion
`
`to Seal portions of its Memorandum in Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for a Permanent Injunction
`
`or, Alternatively, an Ongoing Royalty and Exhibits 1-4, 9-14, 18-21, 23, 25, 26, 28-31, 39, 42 and
`
`44 thereto (“Motion to Seal,” Dkt. 1419). The proposed sealed material identified above includes
`
`Philip Morris’ confidential, financial, proprietary, and competitively sensitive business
`
`information that falls within the scope of the Stipulated Protective Order. Dkt. 103. These
`
`confidential materials should remain under seal.
`
`I.
`
`LEGAL STANDARD
`
`Local Civil Rule 5(C) requires that, when a party moves to file material under seal that
`
`another party has designated as confidential, “the party designating the material as confidential
`
`must file a response to the motion complying with requirements (2), (3), and (4) above along with
`
`a proposed order” that “shall recite the findings required by governing case law to support the
`
`proposed sealing.” Loc. R. Civ. P. 5(C). These requirements are: “(2) A statement why sealing is
`
`necessary, and why another procedure will not suffice, as well as appropriate evidentiary support
`
`for the sealing request; (3) References to the governing case law, an analysis of the appropriate
`
`standard to be applied for that specific filing, and a description of how that standard has been
`
`satisfied; [and] (4) Unless permanent sealing is sought, a statement as to the period of time the
`
`party seeks to have the matter maintained under seal and how the matter is to be handled upon
`
`unsealing.” Id.
`
`The Supreme Court has held that “the right [of the public] to inspect and copy judicial
`
`records is not absolute.” Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 598 (1978). For
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LMB-WEF Document 1424 Filed 09/09/22 Page 3 of 7 PageID# 36867
`
`example, access to court records has been denied where “court files might have become a vehicle
`
`for improper purposes.” Id. In particular, a corporation’s “strong interest in preserving the
`
`confidentiality of its proprietary and trade-secret information … may justify partial sealing of court
`
`records.” Doe v. Public Citizen, 749 F.3d 246, 269 (4th Cir. 2014). As the Fourth Circuit has
`
`explained, a court has the authority to seal court documents “if the public’s right of access is
`
`outweighed by competing interests.” Ashcraft v. Conoco, Inc., 218 F.3d 288, 302 (4th Cir. 2000).
`
`II.
`
`DESCRIPTION OF MATERIALS SOUGHT TO BE SEALED
`
`Reynolds moved for leave to file under seal an unredacted version of the memorandum
`
`submitted in support of its Memorandum in Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for a Permanent
`
`Injunction or, Alternatively, an Ongoing Royalty and Exhibits 1-4, 9-14, 18-21, 23, 25, 26, 28-31,
`
`39, 42 and 44 thereto. Specifically, the sensitive information that Reynolds moved for leave to
`
`file under seal, and to redact from a publicly filed version, includes proprietary and commercially
`
`sensitive information and documents of Philip Morris.
`
`III. 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, 218 F.3d at 302 (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 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) provide specific reasons and factual findings supporting its decision to seal the documents and
`
`for rejecting the alternatives.” Ashcraft, 218 F.3d at 302; see also Adams v. Object Innovation,
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LMB-WEF Document 1424 Filed 09/09/22 Page 4 of 7 PageID# 36868
`
`Inc., No. 11-cv-272, 2011 WL 7042224, at *4 (Dec. 5, 2011), report & recommendation adopted,
`
`2012 WL 135428 (E.D. Va. Jan. 17, 2012). Here, three requirements are met.
`
`First, the public has received notice of the request to seal and has had reasonable
`
`opportunity to object. Reynolds’ Motion to Seal was publicly docketed on September 2, 2022,
`
`in accordance with Local Civil Rule 5, and Philip Morris now files this memorandum in support of
`
`sealing. Since the “public has had ample opportunity to object” to Reynolds’ Motion to Seal and
`
`“the Court has received no objections,” the first requirement under Ashcraft is met. 218 F.3d at
`
`302; see also GTSI Corp. v. Wildflower Int’l, Inc., No. 09-cv-123, 2009 WL 1248114, at *9 (E.D.
`
`Va. Apr. 30, 2009); 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.”).
`
`Second, Reynolds seeks to seal and redact from the public record only information that
`
`the parties must keep confidential pursuant to the provisions of the Stipulated Protective Order.
`
`Dkt. 103. Reynolds filed publicly a redacted version of its Memorandum, in addition to a sealed
`
`version, and redacted only the limited portions that Reynolds seeks to seal. 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] 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 information that is confidential to Philip Morris. Id. The information that
`
`Reynolds seeks to seal includes Philip Morris’ confidential, proprietary, and competitively
`
`sensitive business information, and thus Philip Morris could face harm if such information were
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LMB-WEF Document 1424 Filed 09/09/22 Page 5 of 7 PageID# 36869
`
`to be released publicly. No procedure other than filing this information under seal is sufficient
`
`to preserve the confidential and sensitive nature of the information.
`
`Third, there is support for filing under seal portions of Reynolds’ unredacted
`
`Memorandum and Exhibits 1-4, 9-14, 18-21, 23, 25, 26, 28-31, 39, 42 and 44 thereto. Reynolds’
`
`Memorandum and certain accompanying exhibits contain material that falls within the scope of
`
`the Stipulated Protective Order. Dkt. 103. 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, 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. As discussed, the sealed portions of
`
`Reynolds’ Memorandum and certain Exhibits contain Philip Morris’ confidential information.
`
`IV. CONCLUSION
`
`Philip Morris respectfully requests that Reynolds’ Sealing Motion (Dkt. 1419) be granted
`
`and that such sealing be maintained until further order of this Court.
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LMB-WEF Document 1424 Filed 09/09/22 Page 6 of 7 PageID# 36870
`
`Dated: September 9, 2022
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`By: /s/ Maximilian A. Grant
`
`Maximilian A. Grant (VSB No. 91792)
`max.grant@lw.com
`Lawrence J. Gotts (VSB No. 25337)
`lawrence.gotts@lw.com
`Jamie D. Underwood (pro hac vice)
`jamie.underwood@lw.com
`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
`
`Counsel for Plaintiff Philip Morris Products S.A.
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LMB-WEF Document 1424 Filed 09/09/22 Page 7 of 7 PageID# 36871
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that on this 9th day of September, 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)
`max.grant@lw.com
`LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
`555 Eleventh Street, N.W., Ste. 1000
`Washington, DC 20004
`Tel: (202) 637-2200; Fax: (202) 637-2201
`
`Counsel for Plaintiff Philip Morris Products S.A.
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`