Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 545-1 Filed 04/09/21 Page 1 of 3 PageID# 11682
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`COUNTERCLAIM PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO SEAL
`
`This matter is before the Court on the motion (“Motion to Seal”) filed by Counterclaim
`
`Plaintiffs Altria Client Services LLC, Philip Morris USA Inc., and Philip Morris Products S.A.
`
`(collectively, “Counterclaim Plaintiffs”) to file Counterclaim Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel
`
`Reynolds’ 30(b)(b) Deposition on Topics 28, 54, and 78, and exhibits 1-23 thereto under seal
`
`pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2(d) and Local Civil Rule 5(C). Upon consideration
`
`of Counterclaim 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. Counterclaim Plaintiffs’ sealing motion was publicly docketed in
`
`accordance with Local Civil Rule 5. Counterclaim Defendants RAI Strategic Holdings, Inc. and
`
`R.J. Reynolds Vapor Co. (“Reynolds”) have had an opportunity to respond. The “public has had
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 545-1 Filed 04/09/21 Page 2 of 3 PageID# 11683
`
`
`
`ample opportunity to object” to Counterclaim Plaintiffs’ 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 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.
`
`Counterclaim Plaintiffs seek to seal and to redact from the public record only
`
`information designated by the parties as confidential. Counterclaim Plaintiffs will file publicly a
`
`redacted version of the Motion, 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 Counterclaim Plaintiffs seek to seal includes confidential, proprietary, and
`
`competitively sensitive business information of Counterclaim Plaintiffs, Reynolds, and/or third
`
`parties, each of which could face harm if such information were to be released publicly.
`
`
`
`3.
`
`There is support for filing Counterclaim Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Reynolds’
`
`30(b)(b) Deposition on Topics 28, 54, and 78, and exhibits 1-23 thereto under seal, with a publicly
`
`filed version containing strictly limited redactions. The Motion contains material designated
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 545-1 Filed 04/09/21 Page 3 of 3 PageID# 11684
`
`
`
`confidential under the stipulated protective order, which requires Counterclaim Plaintiffs to file
`
`this material under seal. 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. 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 Counterclaim Plaintiffs are granted leave
`
`to file a REDACTED version of Their Motion to Compel Reynolds’ 30(b)(b) Deposition on
`
`Topics 28, 54, and 78, and exhibits 1-23 thereto.
`
`And to file UNDER SEAL an unredacted version of Their Motion to Compel Reynolds’
`
`30(b)(b) Deposition on Topics 28, 54, and 78, and exhibits 1-23 thereto.
`
`
`
`And FURTHER ORDERED that the unredacted version of Their Motion to Compel
`
`Reynolds’ 30(b)(b) Deposition on Topics 28, 54, and 78, and exhibits 1-23 thereto shall remain
`
`SEALED until further order of the Court.
`
`
`
`ENTERED this ____ day of __________, 2021.
`
`Alexandria, Virginia
`
`__________________________________
`
`
`
`3
`
`