Case 1:20-cv-00393-LMB-WEF Document 1424-1 Filed 09/09/22 Page 1 of 3 PageID# 36872
`
`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
`
`
`
`[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING REYNOLDS’ MOTION TO SEAL
`
`This matter is before the Court on the motion filed by R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company to
`
`file its Opposition to PMP’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 (Dkt. 1419) under seal
`
`pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2(d) and Local Civil Rule 5(C). (“Sealing
`
`Motion”). Because the documents that Reynolds seeks to seal contain confidential, proprietary,
`
`and competitively sensitive business information of Philip Morris Products S.A. (“Philip
`
`Morris”) and/or third parties, Philip Morris filed a memorandum in support of Reynolds’ Sealing
`
`Motion.
`
`Before this Court may seal documents, it must: “(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 v.
`
`Conoco, Inc., 218 F.3d 282, 288 (4th Cir. 2000) (internal citations omitted). Upon consideration
`
`of Reynolds’ Sealing Motion and its memorandum in support thereof, the Court hereby FINDS
`
`as follows:
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LMB-WEF Document 1424-1 Filed 09/09/22 Page 2 of 3 PageID# 36873
`
`1.
`
`The public has received notice of the request to seal and has had reasonable
`
`opportunity to object. Reynolds’ Sealing Motion was publicly docketed in accordance with Local
`
`Civil Rule 5. Philip Morris filed a memorandum in support of sealing. The “public has had
`
`ample opportunity to object” to Reynolds’ motions and, since “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.”).
`
`2.
`
`Reynolds seeks to seal and redact from the public record only information
`
`designated by the parties as confidential. Reynolds filed a publicly redacted version of its
`
`Opposition to Memorandum in Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for a Permanent Injunction or,
`
`Alternatively, an Ongoing Royalty, in addition to a sealed version, and redacted only those
`
`limited portions that Reynolds seeks to seal. Reynolds also seeks to file accompanying Exhibits
`
`1-4, 9-14, 18-21, 23, 25, 26, 28-31, 39, 42 and 44 wholly under seal.
`
`3.
`
`This selective and narrow protection of confidential material constitutes the least
`
`drastic method of shielding the information at issue. Adams v. Object Innovation, Inc., No. 11-
`
`cv-272, 2011 WL 7042224, at *4 (E.D. Va. Dec. 5, 2011) (“[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 Reynolds, Philip Morris, and/or third
`
`parties. Id. at *4. The information that Reynolds seeks to seal includes confidential, proprietary,
`
`and competitively sensitive business information of Philip Morris and/or third parties, each of
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LMB-WEF Document 1424-1 Filed 09/09/22 Page 3 of 3 PageID# 36874
`
`which could face harm if such information were to be released publicly. Specifically, the
`
`sensitive information that Reynolds moves for leave to file under seal, and to redact from a
`
`publicly filed version, includes materials from Philip Morris and/or third parties, such as
`
`confidential business information falling under the scope of the protective order.
`
`4.
`
`There is support for filing portions of the Memorandum and accompanying
`
`Exhibits under seal, with a publicly filed version containing strictly limited redactions. This
`
`Memorandum and Exhibits 1-4, 9-14, 18-21, 23, 25, 26, 28-31, 39, 42 and 44 contain material
`
`that falls within the scope of 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, No. 08-cv-00371, 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 shown, it is hereby
`
`ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED, and Reynolds is granted leave to file a
`
`REDACTED version of the Memorandum;
`
`And to file UNDER SEAL an unredacted version of the Memorandum and
`
`accompanying Exhibits;
`
`And FURTHER ORDERED that the unredacted version of the Memorandum and
`
`accompanying Exhibits shall remain SEALED until further order of the Court:
`
`
`
`ENTERED this ____ day of __________, 2022.
`
`Alexandria, Virginia
`
`
`
`3
`
`__________________________________
`
`