Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 526-1 Filed 03/26/21 Page 1 of 4 PageID# 11548
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
`ALEXANDRIA DIVISION
`
`
`
`v.
`
`RAI STRATEGIC HOLDINGS, INC. and
`R.J. REYNOLDS VAPOR COMPANY,
`
`Plaintiffs and Counterclaim Defendants,
`
`
`
`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
`
`[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO SEAL
`
`This matter is before the Court on the motion filed by Plaintiffs RAI Strategic Holdings,
`
`Inc., and R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) to file Plaintiffs’ Motion for
`
`Leave to File Supplemental Materials and Exhibit A in Support of Plaintiffs’ Second Motion to
`
`Compel Responsive Document Related to Defendants’ ’374 Patent Infringement Counterclaim
`
`under seal pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2(d) and Local Civil Rule 5(C). Because
`
`the documents that Plaintiffs seek to seal contain confidential, proprietary, and competitively
`
`sensitive business information of Defendants Altria Client Services LLC (“ACS”), Philip Morris
`
`USA Inc. (“PM USA”), and Philip Morris Products S.A. (“PMP”) (collectively, “Defendants”)
`
`and/or third parties, Defendants filed a memorandum in support of Plaintiffs’ 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
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 526-1 Filed 03/26/21 Page 2 of 4 PageID# 11549
`
`
`
`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
`
`of Plaintiffs’ 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. Plaintiffs’ sealing motion was publicly docketed in accordance with Local
`
`Civil Rule 5. Defendants have filed a memorandum in support of sealing. The “public has had
`
`ample opportunity to object” to Plaintiffs’ 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.
`
`Plaintiffs seek to seal and redact from the public record only information
`
`designated by the parties as confidential. Plaintiffs have filed publicly a redacted version of
`
`Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Materials and Exhibit A in Support of
`
`Plaintiffs’ Second Motion to Compel Responsive Document Related to Defendants’ ’374 Patent
`
`Infringement Counterclaim (Dkt. 507), in addition to a sealed version, and have 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
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 526-1 Filed 03/26/21 Page 3 of 4 PageID# 11550
`
`
`
`information at issue.”). The public has no legitimate interest in information that is confidential
`
`to Plaintiffs and Defendants. Id. at *4. The information that Plaintiffs seek to seal includes
`
`confidential, proprietary, and competitively sensitive business information of Defendants and/or
`
`third parties, each of which could face harm if such information were to be released publicly.
`
`Specifically, the sensitive information that Plaintiffs move for leave to file under seal, and to
`
`redact from a publicly filed version, includes materials from Defendants and/or third parties, such
`
`as confidential business information falling under the protective order.
`
`3.
`
`There is support for filing portions of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to File
`
`Supplemental Materials and Exhibit A in Support of Plaintiffs’ Second Motion to Compel
`
`Responsive Document Related to Defendants’ ’374 Patent Infringement Counterclaim under seal,
`
`with a publicly filed version containing strictly limited redactions. Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave
`
`to File Supplemental Materials and Exhibit A in Support of Plaintiffs’ Second Motion to Compel
`
`Responsive Document Related to Defendants’ ’374 Patent Infringement Counterclaim contain
`
`material that falls within the scope of the stipulated protective order. 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 Plaintiffs are granted leave to file a
`
`REDACTED version of Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Materials and Exhibit A in
`
`Support of Plaintiffs’ Second Motion to Compel Responsive Document Related to Defendants’
`
`’374 Patent Infringement Counterclaim.
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 526-1 Filed 03/26/21 Page 4 of 4 PageID# 11551
`
`And to file UNDER SEAL an un-redacted version of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to
`
`File Supplemental Materials and Exhibit A in Support of Plaintiffs’ Second Motion to Compel
`
`Responsive Document Related to Defendants’ ’374 Patent Infringement Counterclaim.
`
`And FURTHER ORDERED that the un-redacted version of Plaintiffs’ Motion for
`
`Leave to File Supplemental Materials and Exhibit A in Support of Plaintiffs’ Second Motion to
`
`Compel Responsive Document Related to Defendants’ ’374 Patent Infringement Counterclaim
`
`shall remain SEALED until further order of the Court.
`
`ENTERED this ____ day of __________, 2021.
`
`Alexandria, Virginia
`
`__________________________________
`
`4
`
`