`
`
`
`
`
`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 REYNOLDS’ RENEWED MOTION TO SEAL
`
`This matter is before the Court on the motion filed by R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company
`
`(“Reynolds”) to file Reynolds’ Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for a Permanent Injunction, or
`
`Alternatively, an Ongoing Royalty (“Opposition”) and Exhibits 1-4, 10-14, 19, 25, 28-31, 39, 42,
`
`and 44 thereto (“Exhibits”), under seal (Dkt. 1458) pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
`
`5.2(d) and Local Civil Rule 5(C). Because the documents that Reynolds seeks to seal include
`
`Plaintiff Philip Morris Products S.A.’s (“Philip Morris”) confidential, financial, proprietary, and
`
`competitively sensitive business information that falls within the scope of the Stipulated
`
`Protective Order (Dkt. 103), Philip Morris filed a memorandum in support of Reynolds’ sealing
`
`request.
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LMB-WEF Document 1474-1 Filed 04/12/23 Page 2 of 4 PageID# 41475
`
`
`
`of Reynolds’ motion to seal and memorandum in support thereof, the Court hereby FINDS as
`
`follows:
`
`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. Phillip Morris has filed a memorandum in support of sealing. The “public has had
`
`ample opportunity to object” to Reynolds’ motion and, since “the Court has received no
`
`objections,” the first requirement under Ashcraft, 218 F.3d at 302, has been satisfied. GTSI Corp.
`
`v. Wildflower Int’l, Inc., No. 1:09-cv-123-JCC, 2009 WL 1248114, at *9 (E.D. Va. Apr. 30,
`
`2009); U.S. ex rel. Carter v. Halliburton Co., No. 1:10-cv-864-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.”).
`
`2.
`
`Reynolds seeks to seal and redact from the public record only information
`
`designated by the parties as confidential. Reynolds has filed publicly a redacted version of
`
`Reynolds’ Opposition and Exhibits, in addition to a sealed version, 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 v. Object
`
`Innovation, Inc., No. 3:11-cv-272-REP-DWS, 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 and
`
`Phillip Morris. Id. at *4. The information that Reynolds 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. Specifically, the
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LMB-WEF Document 1474-1 Filed 04/12/23 Page 3 of 4 PageID# 41476
`
`
`
`sensitive information that Reynolds moves for leave to file under seal, and to redact from a
`
`publicly filed version, includes materials from the parties and/or third parties, such as highly
`
`confidential terms of agreements, highly confidential sales data, highly confidential future plans
`
`in the market, and information that third parties have designated confidential that the parties are
`
`required to keep confidential.
`
`3.
`
`There is support for filing portions of Reynolds’ Opposition and Exhibits under
`
`seal, with a publicly filed version containing strictly limited redactions. Reynolds’ Opposition
`
`and Exhibits contain material that falls within the scope of 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. 1:08-cv-00371-JCC, 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 Reynolds’ Opposition and Exhibits.
`
`And to file UNDER SEAL an unredacted version of Reynolds’ Opposition and Exhibits.
`
`And FURTHER ORDERED that the unredacted version of Reynolds’ Opposition and
`
`Exhibits shall remain SEALED until further order of the Court.
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LMB-WEF Document 1474-1 Filed 04/12/23 Page 4 of 4 PageID# 41477
`
`
`
`ENTERED this ____ day of __________, 2023.
`
`Alexandria, Virginia
`
`
`
`__________________________________
`
`4
`
`