`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
`ALEXANDRIA DIVISION
`
`
`
`Civil Action No. 1:20-cv-393
`
`RAI STRATEGIC HOLDINGS, INC. and
`R.J. REYNOLDS VAPOR COMPANY,
`
`
`Plaintiffs and Counterclaim
`Defendants,
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; PHILIP
`MORRIS USA INC.; and PHILIP MORRIS
`PRODUCTS S.A.
`
`Defendants and Counterclaim
`Plaintiffs.
`
`
`
`MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO REDACT
`PORTIONS OF THE NOVEMBER 18, 2020 HEARING TRANSCRIPT
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 455 Filed 02/12/21 Page 2 of 5 PageID# 10171
`
`
`
`Defendants and Counterclaim Plaintiffs Altria Client Services LLC, Philip Morris USA
`
`Inc. and Philip Morris Products S.A. (“Defendants”) submit this memorandum in support of their
`
`motion to designate as “Confidential” pursuant to the Stipulated Protective Order (Dkt. No. 103)
`
`and to redact certain portions of the transcript of the hearing on November 18, 2020.
`
`The transcript of the November hearing were made available to the parties on January 13,
`
`2021 (Dkt. 443). Certain portions of the transcripts reflect Defendants’ and Plaintiffs’ confidential
`
`business information under the protective order.
`
`Accordingly, Defendants respectfully request that this Court enter an order directing that
`
`lines 11:4, 11:6-8 of the November 18, 2020 transcript be redacted and not made available to the
`
`public.
`
`I.
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`Defendants respectfully request that the Court grant their motion based on the grounds set
`
`forth as follows.
`
`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, 181 (4th Cir. 1988).
`
`Defendants seek to redact from the public record only information that the parties must
`
`keep confidential by the stipulated protective order. The following transcript portions contain or
`
`discuss the parties’ confidential business information: lines 11:4, 11:6-8. 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. 11-cv-272, 2011 WL 7042224, at *4
`
`(E.D. Va. Dec. 5, 2011), report and recommendation adopted, 2012 WL 135428 (E.D. Va. Jan.
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 455 Filed 02/12/21 Page 3 of 5 PageID# 10172
`
`
`
`17, 2012). The public has no legitimate interest in information confidential to Defendants and
`
`Plaintiffs. 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 Defendants seek
`
`to redact includes confidential, proprietary, and competitively sensitive business information of
`
`Defendants and Plaintiffs, each of which could face harm if such information were to be released
`
`publicly.
`
`Moreover, Defendants’ request is quite limited. As an initial matter, the stipulated
`
`protective order requires that this information remain confidential. Defendants seek only to redact
`
`certain confidential portions of the transcript from the November 18, 2020 hearing. Redacting this
`
`information is therefore proper because the public’s interest in access is outweighed by a party’s
`
`interest in “preserving confidentiality” of limited amounts of confidential information “normally
`
`unavailable to the public.” Flexible Benefits Counsel v. Feltman, No. 08-cv-371, 2008 WL
`
`4924711, at *1 (E.D. Va. Nov. 13, 2008).
`
`II.
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`For the foregoing reasons, Defendants respectfully request that the Court grant this Motion
`
`and enter the attached proposed order.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 455 Filed 02/12/21 Page 4 of 5 PageID# 10173
`
`
`
`Dated: February 12, 2021
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`By: /s/ Maximilian A. Grant
`Maximilian A. Grant (VSB No. 91792)
`max.grant@lw.com
`Matthew J. Moore
`matthew.moore@law.com
`LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
`555 Eleventh Street, N.W., Suite 1000
`Washington, DC 20004
`Tel: (202) 637-2200; Fax: (202) 637-2201
`
`Clement J. Naples
`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
`greg.sobolski@lw.com
`LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
`505 Montgomery Street, Suite 2000
`San Francisco, CA 94111
`Tel: (415) 391-0600; Fax: (415) 395-8095
`
`Brenda L. Danek
`brenda.danek@lw.com
`LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
`330 North Wabash Avenue, Suite 2800
`Chicago, IL 60611
`Tel: (312) 876-7700; Fax: (312) 993-9767
`
`Counsel for Defendants-Counterclaim Plaintiffs
`Philip Morris Products S.A., Altria Client Services
`LLC, and Philip Morris USA, Inc.
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 455 Filed 02/12/21 Page 5 of 5 PageID# 10174
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that on this 12th day of February, 2021, 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)
`max.grant@lw.com
`LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
`555 Eleventh Street, N.W., Ste. 1000
`Washington, DC 20004
`Tel: (202) 637-2200; Fax: (202) 637-2201
`
`
`
`