`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
`ALEXANDRIA DIVISION
`
`
`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.
`
`Civil Action No. 1:20-cv-393-LO-TCB
`
`
`
`[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING
`PHILIP MORRIS PRODUCTS S.A.’S MOTION TO SEAL
`
`This matter is before the Court on the motion (“Motion to Seal”) filed by Defendant Philip
`
`Morris Products S.A. (“PMP”) to file Exhibits A and B to PMP’s Motion for Leave to Amend
`
`Counterclaims to Add Injunctive Relief, under seal pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
`
`5.2(d) and Local Civil Rule 5(C). Upon consideration of PMP’s Motion to Seal and its
`
`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. PMP’s sealing motion was publicly docketed in accordance with Local
`
`Civil Rule 5. Plaintiffs RAI Strategic Holdings, Inc. and R.J. Reynolds Vapor Co. (“Plaintiffs”)
`
`have had an opportunity to respond. The “public has had ample opportunity to object” to PMP’s
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 466-1 Filed 03/01/21 Page 2 of 3 PageID# 10390
`
`
`
`Int’l, Inc., No. 09-cv-123, 2009 WL 1248114, at *9 (E.D. Va. Apr. 30, 2009); 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.
`
`PMP seeks to seal and to redact from the public record only information designated
`
`by the parties as confidential. PMP will file publicly a redacted version of Exhibits A and B, in
`
`addition to a sealed version, and will 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. Adams v. Object Innovation, Inc., No. 11-cv-272, 2011 WL
`
`7042224, at *4 (E.D. Va. Dec. 5, 2011) (finding 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
`
`information that is confidential to the parties. 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 PMP seeks to
`
`seal includes confidential, proprietary, and competitively sensitive business information of
`
`Defendants, Plaintiffs, 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 Exhibits A and B to PMP’s Motion for Leave
`
`to Amend Counterclaims to Add Injunctive Relief under seal, with a publicly filed version
`
`containing strictly limited redactions. Exhibits A and B contain material designated confidential
`
`under the stipulated protective order, which requires PMP to file this material under seal.
`
`Furthermore, placing these materials under seal is proper because the public’s interest in access is
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 466-1 Filed 03/01/21 Page 3 of 3 PageID# 10391
`
`
`
`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-00371, 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 PMP is granted leave to file a
`
`REDACTED version of Exhibits A and B to PMP’s Motion for Leave to Amend Counterclaims
`
`to Add Injunctive Relief.
`
`And to file UNDER SEAL an unredacted version of Exhibits A and B to PMP’s Motion
`
`for Leave to Amend Counterclaims to Add Injunctive Relief.
`
`
`
`And FURTHER ORDERED that the unredacted version of Exhibits A and B to PMP’s
`
`Motion for Leave to Amend Counterclaims to Add Injunctive Relief shall remain SEALED until
`
`further order of the Court.
`
`ENTERED this ____ day of __________, 2020.
`
`Alexandria, Virginia
`
`__________________________________
`
`
`
`3
`
`