Case 1:20-cv-00393-LMB-WEF Document 1461 Filed 04/05/23 Page 1 of 12 PageID# 39405
`
`IN THE 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
`
`
`
`
`
`MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT’S RENEWED MOTION
`FOR LEAVE TO FILE DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL
`
`Pursuant to Local Civil Rule 5(C) and this Court’s March 22, 2023 Order (Dkt. 1454)
`
`regarding Defendant R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company’s (“RJRV’s”) prior motion to seal at Dkt.
`
`1419, RJRV respectfully moves the Court for leave to file under seal portions of its Memorandum
`
`in Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for a Permanent Injunction or, Alternatively, an Ongoing
`
`Royalty (“Opposition Brief”) and Exhibits 1-4, 10-14, 19, 25, 28-31, 39, 42, and 44 thereto
`
`(collectively, “Exhibits”).
`
`I.
`
`DESCRIPTION OF MATERIALS SOUGHT TO BE SEALED
`
`RJRV respectfully seeks leave to file the following documents under seal:
`
`• An unredacted version of its Opposition Brief (Dkt. 1421 and resubmitted
`
`concurrently with this motion).
`
`• An unredacted version of Exhibit 1 to RJRV’s Opposition Brief, which is the
`
`confidential declaration of Christy Canary-Garner, dated August 31, 2022 (Dkt.
`
`1421-1 and resubmitted concurrently with this motion).
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LMB-WEF Document 1461 Filed 04/05/23 Page 2 of 12 PageID# 39406
`
`• An unredacted version of Exhibit 2 to RJRV’s Opposition Brief, which is the
`
`confidential declaration of Dr. Jeffrey C. Suhling, dated September 1, 2022 (Dkt.
`
`1421-2 and resubmitted concurrently with this motion).
`
`• An unredacted version of Exhibit 3 to RJRV’s Opposition Brief, which is the
`
`confidential declaration of Ryan Sullivan, Ph.D and attachments thereto, dated
`
`September 1, 2022 (Dkt. 1421-3 and resubmitted concurrently with this motion).
`
`• An unredacted version of Exhibit 4 to RJRV’s Opposition Brief, which includes
`
`excerpts from the confidential version of the ITC Commission Opinion, issued on
`
`September 29, 2021 in Certain Tobacco Heating Articles, Inv. No. 337-TA-1199
`
`(U.S.I.T.C.) (the “ITC Investigation” or “ITC”), that Plaintiff Philip Morris
`
`Products S.A. (“PMP”) and/or Altria Client Services, LLC/Philip Morris USA Inc.
`
`(collectively, “Altria/PM”) designated as containing confidential business
`
`information subject to the Protective Order (Dkt. 1421-4 and resubmitted
`
`concurrently with this motion)..
`
`• An unredacted version of Exhibit 10 to RJRV’s Opposition Brief, which includes
`
`excerpts from the deposition transcript of Martin King, dated June 25, 2021, that
`
`PMP designated as confidential business information subject to the Protective
`
`Order (Dkt. 1421-10 and resubmitted concurrently with this motion).
`
`• An unredacted version of Exhibit 11 to RJRV’s Opposition Brief, which includes
`
`excerpts from ITC Hearing Exhibit RX-0188, a distribution agreement that
`
`Altria/PM produced and designated as confidential business information subject to
`
`the Protective Order (Dkt. 1421-11 and resubmitted concurrently with this motion).
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LMB-WEF Document 1461 Filed 04/05/23 Page 3 of 12 PageID# 39407
`
`• An unredacted version of Exhibit 12 to RJRV’s Opposition Brief, which includes
`
`excerpts from ITC Hearing Exhibit RX-0544, a relationship agreement that PMP
`
`produced and designated as confidential business information subject to the
`
`Protective Order (Dkt. 1421-12 and resubmitted concurrently with this motion).
`
`• An unredacted version of Exhibit 13 to RJRV’s Opposition Brief, which includes
`
`excerpts from the deposition transcript of Dr. Moira Gilchrist, dated June 18, 2021,
`
`that PMP designated as confidential business information subject to the Protective
`
`Order (Dkt. 1421-13 and resubmitted concurrently with this motion).
`
`• An unredacted version of Exhibit 14 to RJRV’s Opposition Brief, which includes
`
`excerpts from Altria/PM’s 8th Supplemental Responses
`
`to RJRV's ITC
`
`Interrogatories (Nos. 1-19), dated September 25, 2020, that Altria/PM designated
`
`as confidential business information subject to the Protective Order (Dkt. 1421-14
`
`and resubmitted concurrently with this motion).
`
`• An unredacted version of Exhibit 19 to RJRV’s Opposition Brief, which includes
`
`excerpts from Dr. Jonathan Arnold’s ITC Expert Rebuttal Report, dated October
`
`23, 2020 (Dkt. 1421-19 and resubmitted concurrently with this motion).
`
`• An unredacted version of Exhibit 25 to RJRV’s Opposition Brief, which includes
`
`excerpts from the deposition transcript of Edward Kiernan, dated April 16, 2021,
`
`that PMP designated as confidential business information subject to the Protective
`
`Order (Dkt. 1421-24 and resubmitted concurrently with this motion).
`
`• An unredacted version of Exhibit 28 to RJRV’s Opposition Brief, which includes
`
`excerpts from ITC Hearing Exhibit CX-0183C, a presentation that Altria/PM
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LMB-WEF Document 1461 Filed 04/05/23 Page 4 of 12 PageID# 39408
`
`produced and designated as confidential business information subject to the
`
`Protective Order (Dkt. 1421-27 and resubmitted concurrently with this motion).
`
`• An unredacted version of Exhibit 29 to RJRV’s Opposition Brief, which includes
`
`excerpts from ITC Hearing Exhibit CX-0190C, a presentation that Altria/PM
`
`produced and designated as confidential business information subject to the
`
`Protective Order (Dkt. 1421-28 and resubmitted concurrently with this motion).
`
`• An unredacted version of Exhibit 30 to RJRV’s Opposition Brief, which includes
`
`excerpts from ITC Hearing Exhibit CX-0614C, a regulatory document that PMP
`
`produced and designated as confidential business information subject to the
`
`Protective Order (Dkt. 1421-29 and resubmitted concurrently with this motion).
`
`• An unredacted version of Exhibit 31 to RJRV’s Opposition Brief, which includes
`
`excerpts from the confidential version of RJRV’s March 31, 2021 Opening Post-
`
`Hearing Brief filed in the ITC Investigation, that PMP and/or Altria/PM designated
`
`as containing confidential business information subject to the Protective Order
`
`(Dkt. 1421-30 and resubmitted concurrently with this motion).
`
`• An unredacted version of Exhibit 39 to RJRV’s Opposition Brief, which is a PMP
`
`intellectual property assignment agreement, that PMP produced and designated as
`
`confidential business information subject to the Protective Order (Dkt. 1421-38 and
`
`resubmitted concurrently with this motion).
`
`• An unredacted version of Exhibit 42 to RJRV’s Opposition Brief, which includes
`
`excerpts from PMP’s 8th Supplemental Responses to RJRV's 1st Set of ITC
`
`Interrogatories (Nos. 1-19), dated September 25, 2020, that PMP designated as
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LMB-WEF Document 1461 Filed 04/05/23 Page 5 of 12 PageID# 39409
`
`confidential business information subject to the Protective Order (Dkt. 1421-41 and
`
`resubmitted concurrently with this motion).
`
`• An unredacted version of Exhibit 44 to RJRV’s Opposition Brief, which is Trial
`
`Exhibit PX-125, a RJRV settlement and license agreement, that RJRV produced
`
`and designated as confidential business information subject to the Protective Order
`
`(Dkt. 1421-42 and resubmitted concurrently with this motion).
`
`The aforementioned Opposition Brief and Exhibits 1-3, 19, and 44 thereto, all contain
`
`confidential business information of Reynolds. The Opposition Brief and Exhibits 4, 10-14, 19,
`
`25, 28-31, 39, and 42 contains information designated as confidential business information by
`
`Plaintiff, Philip Morris Products, S.A. (“PMP”), and Reynolds expects Plaintiff to provide the
`
`necessary support for that material to be sealed. Reynolds takes no position as to the
`
`appropriateness of Plaintiff’s designated material for sealing. For the Opposition Brief and Exhibit
`
`19, Reynolds’s information sought to be sealed is annotated with yellow highlighting and PMP’s
`
`information it requested be sealed is annotated with green highlighting.
`
`II.
`
`LEGAL STANDARD
`
`The law of the regional circuit applies to non-substantive issues of patent law, including
`
`the question whether to seal district court records. See Uniloc 2017 LLC v. Apple, Inc., 964 F.3d
`
`1351, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2020). A motion to seal implicates both substantive and procedural
`
`requirements. Va. Dep’t of State Police v. Wash. Post, 386 F.3d 567, 576 (4th Cir. 2004).
`
`Substantively, the Court must determine the nature of the information and the public’s right
`
`to access. Stone v. Univ. of Md. Med. Sys. Corp., 855 F.2d 178, 180-81 (4th Cir. 1988). “The right
`
`of public access to documents or materials filed in a district court derives from two independent
`
`sources: the common law and the First Amendment.” Va. Dep’t of State Police, 386 F.3d at 575.
`
`“While the common law presumption in favor of access attaches to all ‘judicial records and
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LMB-WEF Document 1461 Filed 04/05/23 Page 6 of 12 PageID# 39410
`
`documents,’ the First Amendment guarantee of access has been extended only to particular judicial
`
`records and documents.” Stone, 855 F.2d at 180 (internal citation omitted). Moreover, the
`
`common law right to inspect records and documents “is not absolute.” Nixon v. Warner
`
`Communications, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 598 (1978). Accordingly, some documents “fall within the
`
`common law presumption of access, while others are subject to the greater right of access provided
`
`by the First Amendment. Still others may not qualify as ‘judicial records’ at all.” U.S. v.
`
`Moussaoui, 65 F. App’x 881, 889 (4th Cir. 2003) (internal citation omitted).1
`
`Although “the Supreme Court has not addressed whether the First Amendment’s right of
`
`access extends to civil trials or other aspects of civil cases . . . , the Fourth Circuit[ ] ha[s]
`
`recognized that the First Amendment right of access extends to civil trials and some civil filings.”
`
`Am. Civil Liberties Union v. Holder, 673 F.3d 245, 252 (4th Cir. 2011). Even so, public access to
`
`civil trial records “is not absolute,” and restrictions can be justified by concerns that such records
`
`“might . . . become a vehicle for improper purposes,” such as where the records serve “as sources
`
`of business information that might harm a litigant’s competitive standing.” Nixon, 435 U.S. at
`
`598.
`
`As set forth in the Fourth Circuit’s decision in Ashcraft v. Conoco, Inc., a court has the
`
`authority to seal court documents “if the public’s right of access is outweighed by competing
`
`interests.” 218 F.3d 288, 302 (4th Cir. 2000). Before granting a motion to seal, a court must
`
`consider the following: “(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
`
`
`1 “Judicial records” are “documents filed with the court [that] play a role in the adjudicative
`process, or adjudicate substantive rights.” In re U.S. for an Order Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
`2703(D), 707 F.3d 283, 290 (4th Cir. 2013).
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LMB-WEF Document 1461 Filed 04/05/23 Page 7 of 12 PageID# 39411
`
`and for rejecting the alternatives.” Id.; Adams v. Object Innovation, Inc., No. 3:11CV00272-REP-
`
`DWD, 2011 WL 7042224, at *4 (E.D. Va. Dec. 5, 2011), report & recommendation adopted, 2012
`
`WL 135428 (E.D. Va. Jan. 17, 2012).
`
`Procedurally, 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.
`
`III.
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`RJRV’s Opposition Brief and Exhibits 1-3, 19, and 44 thereto contain confidential business
`
`information of RJRV and third parties, including confidential and proprietary information made
`
`available to FDA as part of the regulatory process; licensing agreements with third parties; internal
`
`business documents; and non-public financial information, including forecasts, costs analyses,
`
`internal plans regarding distribution and marketing, and financial information for individual VUSE
`
`product lines. These materials fall within the Protective Order and RJRV has maintained the
`
`confidentiality of these documents.
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LMB-WEF Document 1461 Filed 04/05/23 Page 8 of 12 PageID# 39412
`
`A. THE PUBLIC HAS AMPLE NOTICE.
`
`The public has received notice of the request to seal and will have a reasonable opportunity
`
`to object. RJRV’s sealing motion is being publicly docketed in accordance with Local Civil Rule
`
`5, and RJRV now files this memorandum in support of sealing. PMP and Altria/PM will have an
`
`opportunity to respond, and once the “public has had ample opportunity to object” to RJRV’s
`
`sealing motion and “the Court has received no objections,” the first requirement under Ashcraft,
`
`218 F.3d at 302, may be deemed satisfied. GTSI Corp. v. Wildflower Int’l, Inc., No. 1:09CV123
`
`(JCC), 2009 WL 1248114, at *9 (E.D. Va. Apr. 30, 2009); United States. ex rel. Carter v.
`
`Halliburton Co., No. 1:10CV864 (JCC/TCB), 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.”).
`
`
`
`B. RJRV SEEKS THE LEAST DRASTIC MEASURES.
`
`RJRV seeks to seal and redact from the public record only information that the parties must
`
`keep confidential pursuant to the Stipulated Protective Order. (Dkt. 103.) After reviewing the
`
`materials that have remained confidential following the jury trial in this matter, RJRV has filed
`
`updated publicly redacted versions of its Opposition Brief and Exhibits, in addition to sealed
`
`versions, and has redacted 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. 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 RJRV, PMP, Altria/PM, or third
`
`parties. Id. The information that RJRV seeks to seal includes confidential, proprietary, and
`
`competitively sensitive business information of RJRV, PMP, Altria/PM, and third parties, any of
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LMB-WEF Document 1461 Filed 04/05/23 Page 9 of 12 PageID# 39413
`
`which could face harm if such information were 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.
`
`
`
`
`
`C. THE MATERIALS ARE HIGHLY SENSITIVE AND CONFIDENTIAL.
`
`There is support for filing RJRV’s Opposition Brief and Exhibits under seal with a publicly
`
`filed version containing strictly limited redactions. The redacted material in RJRV’s Opposition
`
`Brief and 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. 1:08CV00371 (JCC), 2008 WL 4924711, at *1 (E.D. Va. Nov. 13, 2008); United
`
`States ex rel. Carter, 2011 WL 2077799, at *3. As RJRV previously explained in its Motion to
`
`Seal Trial Exhibits (Dkt. 1243), that was granted by the Court “to the extent that plaintiffs do not
`
`object” (Dkt. 1266), materials concerning (1) Vuse PMTAs (Dkt. 1243 at 4-8; Dkt. 1243-2 at ¶¶
`
`6-8); (2) non-party settlement agreements and license agreements (Dkt. 1243 at 10-13; Dkt. 1243-
`
`2 at ¶¶ 10-11); and (3) financial forecasts, cost analyses, future business plans and related
`
`testimony (Dkt. 1243 at 10-13; Dkt. 1243-2 at ¶¶ 6-8, 12) contain information that is confidential
`
`(Dkt. 1243 at 17-18; Dkt. 1243-2 at ¶¶ 5, 6, 10), and disclosure of such information would harm
`
`RJRV’s competitive standing and business interests (Dkt. 1243 at 18-23; Dkt. 1243-2 at ¶¶ 6-8,
`
`10-12), such that RJRV’s interests in confidentiality heavily outweigh the public’s interest in
`
`disclosure (Dkt. 1243 at 24-26). In granting motions to seal exhibits to dispositive and non-
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LMB-WEF Document 1461 Filed 04/05/23 Page 10 of 12 PageID# 39414
`
`dispositive briefing, this Court and others have recognized that the type of information at issue
`
`here is confidential that requires sealing from public access.2
`
`IV.
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`For the foregoing reasons, RJRV respectfully requests that the Court grant this motion and
`
`enter the attached proposed Order.
`
`
`2 See, e.g., LifeNet Health v. LifeCell Corp., No. 2:13cv486, 2015 WL 12517430, at *4 (E.D. Va.
`Feb. 12, 2015 (granting motion to redact trial transcripts to seal future product plans, licensing
`agreements with third-parties, and financial information as “trade secret[s]” “significant enough
`to outweigh the First Amendment right of access in this case”); In re Genworth Fin. Sec. Litig.,
`No. 3:14-cv-682-JAG, 2015 WL 12830373, at *2 (E.D. Va. Dec. 10, 2015) (granting motions to
`seal exhibits to a declaration and portions of a motion to compel containing commercially sensitive
`information such as business strategy, product development strategy, and future business
`planning); ATI Indus. Automation, Inc. v. Applied Robotics, Inc., No. 1:09CV471, 2014 WL
`2607364, at *5 (M.D.N.C. June 11, 2014) (granting motion to seal information concerning
`customers, customer purchase history, pricing, and costs); SMD Software, Inc. v. EMove Inc., No.
`5:08-CV-403-FL, 2013 WL 1091054, at *6 (E.D.N.C. Mar. 15, 2013) (granting motion to seal
`financial, market share, pricing, and marketing information).
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LMB-WEF Document 1461 Filed 04/05/23 Page 11 of 12 PageID# 39415
`
`Dated: April 5, 2023
`
`
`
`Stephanie E. Parker
`JONES DAY
`1221 Peachtree Street, N.E.
`Suite 400
`Atlanta, GA 30361
`Telephone: (404) 521-3939
`Facsimile: (404) 581-8330
`Email: separker@jonesday.com
`
`
`Anthony M. Insogna
`JONES DAY
`4655 Executive Drive
`Suite 1500
`San Diego, CA 92121
`Telephone: (858) 314-1200
`Facsimile: (844) 345-3178
`Email: aminsogna@jonesday.com
`
`William E. Devitt
`JONES DAY
`110 North Wacker
`Suite 4800
`Chicago, IL 60606
`Telephone: (312) 269-4240
`Facsimile: (312) 782-8585
`Email: wdevitt@jonesday.com
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` /s/ David M. Maiorana
`David M. Maiorana (VA Bar No. 42334)
`Ryan B. McCrum
`JONES DAY
`901 Lakeside Ave.
`Cleveland, OH 44114
`Telephone: (216) 586-3939
`Facsimile: (216) 579-0212
`Email: dmaiorana@jonesday.com
`Email: rbmccrum@jonesday.com
`
`John J. Normile
`JONES DAY
`250 Vesey Street
`New York, NY 10281
`Telephone: (212) 326-3939
`Facsimile: (212) 755-7306
`Email: jjnormile@jonesday.com
`
`
`Alexis A. Smith
`JONES DAY
`555 South Flower Street
`Fiftieth Floor
`Los Angeles, CA 90071
`Telephone: (213) 243-2653
`Facsimile: (213) 243-2539
`Email: asmith@jonesday.com
`
`Charles B. Molster, III Va. Bar No. 23613
`THE LAW OFFICES OF
`CHARLES B. MOLSTER, III PLLC
`2141 Wisconsin Avenue, N.W. Suite M
`Washington, DC 20007
`Telephone: (703) 346-1505
`Email: cmolster@molsterlaw.com
`
`Counsel for RAI Strategic Holdings, Inc. and
`R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LMB-WEF Document 1461 Filed 04/05/23 Page 12 of 12 PageID# 39416
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`
`
`I hereby certify that on this 5th day of April, 2023, 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/ David M. Maiorana
`David M. Maiorana (VA Bar No. 42334)
`JONES DAY
`901 Lakeside Ave.
`Cleveland, OH 44114
`Telephone: (216) 586-3939
`Facsimile: (216) 579-0212
`Email: dmaiorana@jonesday.com
`
`Counsel for RAI Strategic Holdings, Inc. and
`R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company
`
`
`
`
`
`
`