Case 1:20-cv-00393-LMB-WEF Document 1427 Filed 09/09/22 Page 1 of 6 PageID# 37075
`
`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-WEF
`
`
`
`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 Reply Brief in Support of Philip Morris’ Motion
`
`For a Permanent Injunction or, Alternatively, an Ongoing Royalty (“Reply”) and Exhibits 57-58,
`
`65-66, 70, and 74-78 thereto (“Exhibits”) under seal.
`
`I.
`
`DESCRIPTION OF MATERIALS SOUGHT TO BE SEALED
`
`Philip Morris respectfully seeks leave to file the following documents under seal:
`
`• An unredacted version of its Reply Brief in Support of Philip Morris’ Motion For
`a Permanent Injunction or, Alternatively, an Ongoing Royalty (“Reply”); and
`• Exhibit 57 to Philip Morris’ Reply, which includes excerpts from the deposition
`transcript of Kara Calderon, dated November 12, 2020, which Reynolds designated
`as confidential subject to the Protective Order.
`• Exhibit 58 to Philip Morris’ Reply, which is excerpts from Reynolds’ Responses to
`Philip Morris’ First Set of Interrogatories, dated September 17, 2020, which
`Reynolds designated as confidential subject to the Protective Order.
`• Exhibit 65 to Philip Morris’ Reply, which includes excerpts from the deposition
`transcript of Dr. Moira Gilchrist, dated June 18, 2021, which Philip Morris
`designated as confidential subject to the Protective Order.
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LMB-WEF Document 1427 Filed 09/09/22 Page 2 of 6 PageID# 37076
`
`• Exhibit 66 to Philip Morris’ Reply, which includes excerpts from Reynolds’
`responses to Interrogatory No. 30, dated April 30, 2021, which Reynolds
`designated as confidential business information subject to the Protective Order.
`• Exhibit 70 to Philip Morris’ Reply, which includes excerpts from the June 8, 2022
`p.m. transcript of the jury trial in this case, which has not yet been publicly released.
`• Exhibit 75 to Philip Morris’ Reply, which is the declaration of Stacy Ehrlich, dated
`September 9, 2022, which Philip Morris designated as confidential subject to the
`Protective Order.
`• Exhibit 75 to Philip Morris’ Reply, which includes excerpts from the transcript of
`the March 18, 2022 hearing in this case, which has not yet been publicly released.
`• Exhibit 76 to Philip Morris’ Reply, which is the Declaration of Paul K. Meyer,
`dated September 9, 2022, that was designated by Philip Morris as including
`information produced by at least one party as confidential under the Protective
`Order.
`• Exhibit 77 to Philip Morris’ Reply, which includes the production email and
`metadata report of a financial spreadsheet that Reynolds’ produced and designated
`as confidential business information subject to the Protective Order.
`• Exhibit 78 to Philip Morris’ Reply, which includes excerpts from the Report of
`Ryan Sullivan, Ph.D., dated March 24, 2021, which Reynolds designated as
`confidential business information subject to the Protective Order.
`
`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
`
`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
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LMB-WEF Document 1427 Filed 09/09/22 Page 3 of 6 PageID# 37077
`
`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 Reply 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, Reynolds, or
`
`third parties. See Adams, 2011 WL 7042224, 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 Philip Morris
`
`seeks to seal and redact includes confidential, proprietary, and competitively sensitive business
`
`information of Reynolds, Philip Morris, and/or third parties, that Philip Morris is required to seal
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LMB-WEF Document 1427 Filed 09/09/22 Page 4 of 6 PageID# 37078
`
`under the Protective Order entered this case. Reynolds, Philip Morris, and/or third parties could
`
`face harm if such information were released publicly.
`
`Third, there is support for filing portions of Philip Morris’ Reply 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 Reply
`
`only pertain to this confidential information. Moreover, the Exhibits filed under seal contain
`
`information that Reynolds, Philip Morris, and/or a third party has designated as competitively
`
`sensitive business information. Sealing these materials is thus 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.
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LMB-WEF Document 1427 Filed 09/09/22 Page 5 of 6 PageID# 37079
`
`Dated: September 9, 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 D. 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
`
`Counsel for Plaintiff Philip Morris Products
`S.A.
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LMB-WEF Document 1427 Filed 09/09/22 Page 6 of 6 PageID# 37080
`
`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)
`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.
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`