Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 494-1 Filed 03/17/21 Page 1 of 4 PageID# 11203
`
`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,
`
`Civil Action No. 1:20-cv-393
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; PHILIP
`MORRIS USA INC.; and PHILIP MORRIS
`PRODUCTS S.A.
`
`Defendants and Counterclaim
`Plaintiffs.
`
`
`
`[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO SEAL
`
`This matter is before the Court on the motion filed by Defendants Altria Client Services
`
`LLC (“ACS”), Philip Morris USA Inc. (“PM USA”), and Philip Morris Products S.A. (“PMP”)
`
`(collectively, “Defendants”) to file Defendants’ Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Second Motion to
`
`Compel Production of Documents Related to Defendants’ ’374 Patent Infringement Counterclaim
`
`and certain accompanying declarations and exhibits under seal pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
`
`Procedure 5.2(d) and Local Civil Rule 5(C). Upon consideration of Defendants’ 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. Defendants’ 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
`
`Defendants’ motion and, since “the Court has received no objections,” the first requirement under
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 494-1 Filed 03/17/21 Page 2 of 4 PageID# 11204
`
`
`
`Ashcraft v. Conoco, Inc., 218 F.3d 288, 302 (4th Cir. 2000), 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.
`
`Defendants seek to seal and to redact from the public record only information
`
`designated by the parties as confidential. Defendants will file publicly a redacted version of
`
`Defendants’ Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Second Motion to Compel Production of Documents Related
`
`to Defendants’ ’374 Patent Infringement Counterclaim and certain accompanying declarations and
`
`exhibits, 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. 3:11cv272-REP-
`
`DWD, 2011 WL 7042224, at *4 (E.D. Va. Dec. 5, 2011) (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 Defendants and Plaintiffs. 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 Defendants seek 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 Defendants’ Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Second
`
`Motion to Compel Production of Documents Related to Defendants’ ’374 Patent Infringement
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 494-1 Filed 03/17/21 Page 3 of 4 PageID# 11205
`
`
`
`Counterclaim under seal, with a publicly filed version containing strictly limited redactions. The
`
`same is true for the accompanying declarations and exhibits Defendants filed under seal.
`
`Defendants’ Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Second Motion to Compel Production of Documents Related
`
`to Defendants’ ’374 Patent Infringement Counterclaim and accompanying declarations and
`
`exhibits contain material designated confidential under the stipulated protective order.
`
`Accordingly, Defendants are required to file this material under seal pursuant to the stipulated
`
`protective order. Furthermore, 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. l: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 show, it is hereby
`
`ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED, and Defendants are granted leave to file a
`
`REDACTED version of Defendants’ Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Second Motion to Compel
`
`Production of Documents Related to Defendants’ ’374 Patent Infringement Counterclaim,
`
`accompanying declarations, and Exhibit Nos. 1-13.
`
`And to file UNDER SEAL an un-redacted version of Defendants’ Opposition to Plaintiffs’
`
`Defendants’ Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Second Motion to Compel Production of Documents Related
`
`to Defendants’ ’374 Patent Infringement Counterclaim, accompanying declarations, and Exhibit
`
`Nos. 1-13.
`
`And FURTHER ORDERED that the un-redacted version of Defendants’ Opposition to
`
`Plaintiffs’ Second Motion to Compel Production of Documents Related to Defendants’
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 494-1 Filed 03/17/21 Page 4 of 4 PageID# 11206
`
`
`
`’374 Patent Infringement Counterclaim, accompanying declarations, and Exhibit Nos. 1-13 shall
`
`remain SEALED until further order of the Court.
`
`
`
`ENTERED this ____ day of __________, 2021.
`
`Alexandria, Virginia
`
`__________________________________
`
`
`
`4
`
`