`
`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
`
`
`
`
`MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF COUNTERCLAIM PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO
`REDACT PORTIONS OF THE MARCH 19, 2021 HEARING TRANSCRIPT
`
`Counterclaim Plaintiffs Altria Client Services LLC, Philip Morris USA Inc. and Philip
`
`Morris Products S.A. (“Counterclaim Plaintiffs”) submit this memorandum in support of their
`
`motion to designate as “Confidential” pursuant to the Stipulated Protective Order (Dkt. 103) and
`
`to redact certain portions of the transcript of the hearing on March 19, 2021. The transcript of the
`
`March hearing was made available to the parties on March 27, 2021 (Dkt. 531). Certain portions
`
`of the transcripts reflect Counterclaim Plaintiffs’ confidential business information under the
`
`protective order. Accordingly, Counterclaim Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court enter
`
`an order directing that lines 5:23-6:1, 6:6-7, 6:8-9, 6:16, 6:25, 7:17-18, 7:24-8:2, 8:4, 8:12, and
`
`10:1-2 of the March 19, 2021 transcript be redacted and not made available to the public.
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 576 Filed 04/26/21 Page 2 of 5 PageID# 12603
`
`I.
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`Counterclaim Plaintiffs 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).
`
`Counterclaim Plaintiffs 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 5:23-6:1, 6:6-7, 6:8-9, 6:16,
`
`6:25, 7:17-18, 7:24-8:2, 8:4, 8:12, and 10:1-2. 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. 17, 2012). The public has no
`
`legitimate interest in information confidential to Counterclaim 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 Counterclaim Plaintiffs seek to redact
`
`includes confidential, proprietary, and competitively sensitive business
`
`information of
`
`Counterclaim Plaintiffs, which could face harm if such information were to be released publicly.
`
`Moreover, Counterclaim Plaintiffs’ request is quite limited. As an initial matter, the
`
`stipulated protective order requires that this information remain confidential. Counterclaim
`
`Plaintiffs seek only to redact certain confidential portions of the transcript from the March 19,
`
`2021 hearing. Redacting this information is therefore proper because the public’s interest in access
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 576 Filed 04/26/21 Page 3 of 5 PageID# 12604
`
`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, Counterclaim Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court grant
`
`this Motion and enter the attached proposed order.
`
`Dated: April 26, 2021
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`By: /s/ Maximilian A. Grant
`Maximilian A. Grant (VSB No. 91792)
`max.grant@lw.com
`Lawrence J. Gotts (VSB No. 25337)
`lawrence.gotts@lw.com
`Matthew J. Moore (pro hac vice)
`matthew.moore@lw.com
`LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
`555 Eleventh Street, N.W., Suite 1000
`Washington, DC 20004
`Telephone: (202) 637-2200
`Facsimile: (202) 637-2201
`
`Clement J. Naples (pro hac vice)
`clement.naples@lw.com
`LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
`885 Third Avenue
`New York, NY 10022-4834
`Tel: (212) 906-1200; Fax: (212) 751-4864
`
`Gregory J. Sobolski (pro hac vice)
`greg.sobolski@lw.com
`LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
`505 Montgomery Street, Suite 2000
`San Francisco, CA 94111
`Telephone: (415) 391-0600
`Facsimile: (415) 395-8095
`
`Brenda L. Danek (pro hac vice)
`brenda.danek@lw.com
`LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
`330 North Wabash Avenue, Suite 2800
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 576 Filed 04/26/21 Page 4 of 5 PageID# 12605
`
`Chicago, IL 60611
`Tel: (312) 876-7700; Fax: (312) 993-9767
`
`Counsel for Defendants-Counterclaim Plaintiffs
`Altria Client Services LLC, Philip Morris USA
`Inc., and Philip Morris Products S.A.
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 576 Filed 04/26/21 Page 5 of 5 PageID# 12606
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that on this 26th day of April, 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)
`LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
`555 Eleventh Street, N.W., Suite 1000
`Washington, DC 20004
`Telephone: (202) 637-2200
`Facsimile: (202) 637-2201
`Email: max.grant@lw.com
`
`Counsel for Defendants-Counterclaim
`Plaintiffs Altria Client Services LLC, Philip
`Morris USA Inc., and Philip Morris
`Products S.A.
`
`
`
`