Case 1:20-cv-00393-LMB-WEF Document 1431 Filed 09/19/22 Page 1 of 3 PageID# 37405
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
`ALEXANDRIA DIVISION
`
`PHILIP MORRIS PRODUCTS S.A.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Civil Action No. 1:20-cv-393-LMB-WEF
`
`v.
`
`R.J. REYNOLDS VAPOR COMPANY,
`
`Defendant.
`
`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 Reply 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 pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2(d) and Local Civil Rule
`
`5(C). Upon consideration of Philip Morris’ 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.
`
`Halliburton Co., No. 10-cv-864, 2011 WL 2077799, at *3 (E.D. Va. May 24, 2011) (“[T]he parties
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LMB-WEF Document 1431 Filed 09/19/22 Page 2 of 3 PageID# 37406
`
`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 from the public record only information designated
`
`by the parties as confidential. 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 that 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’ Reply and Exhibits under seal.
`
`The Reply 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 “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
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LMB-WEF Document 1431 Filed 09/19/22 Page 3 of 3 PageID# 37407
`
`ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED, and Philip Morris is granted leave to file
`
`UNDER SEAL an unredacted version of its Reply and Exhibits 57-58, 65-66, 70, and 74-78
`
`thereto.
`
`And FURTHER ORDERED that the unredacted version of Philip Morris’ Reply and
`
`Exhibits 57-58, 65-66, 70, and 74-78 thereto shall remain SEALED until further order of the
`
`Court.
`
`ENTERED this 19th day of September, 2022.
`
`Alexandria, Virginia
`
`_________________________________
`William E. Fitzpatrick
`United States Magistrate Judge
`
`3
`
`