`
`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-TCB
`
`
`
`[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING PHILIP MORRIS’ RENEWED MOTION TO SEAL
`
`This matter is before the Court on the renewed motion filed by Plaintiff Philip Morris
`
`
`
`Products S.A. (“Philip Morris”) to file its Brief in Support of Philip Morris’ Motion for a
`
`Permanent Injunction or, Alternatively, an Ongoing Royalty (“Opening Brief”), Reply in Support
`
`of Philip Morris’ Motion For a Permanent Injunction or, Alternatively, an Ongoing Royalty
`
`(“Reply Brief”) (together, “Briefs”), and Exhibits 5, 18, 23-24, 27, 38, 41, 43-44, 47-48, 56, 65-
`
`66, 76, and 78 thereto (“Exhibits”), under seal pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2(d)
`
`and Local Civil Rule 5(C). In addition, Philip Morris seeks to maintain under seal the
`
`Memorandum Opinion entered by the Court on March 30, 2023 (Dkt. 1455) (“Memorandum
`
`Opinion”). 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.,
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LMB-WEF Document 1463-1 Filed 04/05/23 Page 2 of 3 PageID# 40157
`
`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
`
`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 to redact from the public record only information
`
`designated by the parties as confidential. Philip Morris will file publicly redacted versions of its
`
`Briefs, Exhibits, in addition to sealed versions, and will redact only those limited portions it seeks
`
`to seal. Further, Philip Morris has provided the Court with its proposed redactions to the
`
`Memorandum Opinion, proposing to redact 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. 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 seek 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 the Briefs, Exhibits, and Memorandum
`
`Opinion under seal with publicly filed versions containing strictly limited redactions. The Briefs,
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LMB-WEF Document 1463-1 Filed 04/05/23 Page 3 of 3 PageID# 40158
`
`Exhibits, and Memorandum Opinion 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. Moreover, the information 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.
`
`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
`
`ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED, and Philip Morris is granted leave to file a
`
`REDACTED version of the Briefs, Exhibits, and Memorandum Opinion. And to file UNDER
`
`SEAL an unredacted version of the Briefs, Exhibits, and Memorandum Opinion.
`
`And FURTHER ORDERED that the unredacted version of the Briefs, Exhibits and
`
`Memorandum Opinion, shall remain SEALED until further order of the Court.
`
`
`
`
`
`ENTERED this ____ day of __________, 2023.
`
`Alexandria, Virginia
`
`__________________________________
`
`3
`
`