Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 585 Filed 04/30/21 Page 1 of 6 PageID# 13277
`
`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 FOR LEAVE TO FILE DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL
`
`Pursuant to Local Civil Rule 5(C), Counterclaim Plaintiffs Altria Client Services, LLC
`
`(“ACS”), Philip Morris USA Inc. (“PM USA”), and Philip Morris Products S.A. (“PMP”)
`
`(collectively, “PMP/Altria”) hereby move the Court for leave to file PMP/Altria’s Motion for
`
`Leave to Serve Supplemental Expert Reports (“Motion”) and accompanying Exhibits 2–21, under
`
`seal.
`
`All of the materials Counterclaim Plaintiffs seek to file under seal are confidential under
`
`the stipulated protective order.
`
`I.
`
`DESCRIPTION OF MATERIALS SOUGHT TO BE SEALED
`
`Counterclaim Plaintiffs seek leave to file the following documents under seal:
`
`• PMP/Altria’s Memorandum in Support of Their Motion for Leave to Serve
`
`Supplemental Expert Reports
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 585 Filed 04/30/21 Page 2 of 6 PageID# 13278
`
`• Exhibit 2, Email chain between J. Koh and J. Michalik (Nov. 5, 2020)
`
`• Exhibit 3, RJREDVA_001449123, Regulatory Submission Support for the Vuse
`
`Alto Electronic Nicotine Delivery System (ENDS)
`
`• Exhibit 4, RJREDVA_001450878, Alto Premarket Tobacco Product Application
`
`• Exhibit 5, Deposition of E. Hunt (Nov. 20, 2020)
`
`• Exhibit 6, Email from J. Michalik to J. Koh (Feb. 19, 2021)
`
`• Exhibit 7, Reynolds’ Third Supp. Resp. to Interrog. No. 16 (Feb. 19, 2021)
`
`• Exhibit 8, Reynolds’ Fourth Supp. Resp. to Interrog. No. 1 (Mar. 5, 2021)
`
`• Exhibit 9, Expert Report of K. Kodama (Mar. 31, 2021)
`
`• Exhibit 10, Deposition of E. Hunt (Apr. 14, 2021)
`
`• Exhibit 11, Expert Report of P. Meyer (Feb. 24, 2021)
`
`• Exhibit 12, Expert Report of J. Abraham (Feb. 24, 2021)
`
`• Exhibit 13, Ltr. from D. McNeely to J. Michalik (Apr. 26, 2021)
`
`• Exhibit 14, Email from J. Michalik to D. McNeely (Apr. 30, 2021)
`
`• Exhibit 15, Supp. Expert Report of P. Meyer (Apr. 26, 2021)
`
`• Exhibit 16, Deposition of S. Peddycord (Apr. 16, 2021)
`
`• Exhibit 17, Reynolds’ Initial Disclosures (Sept. 9, 2021)
`
`• Exhibit 18, Reynolds’ Third Supp. Resp. to Interrog. No. 4 (Mar. 24, 2021)
`
`• Exhibit 19, Reb. Report of R. Sullivan (Mar. 24, 2021)
`
`• Exhibit 20, Supp. Expert Report of J. Abraham (Apr. 26, 2021)
`
`• Exhibit 21, Email from L. Smith (Apr. 26, 2021)
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 585 Filed 04/30/21 Page 3 of 6 PageID# 13279
`
`II.
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`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, 180 (4th Cir. 1988). To
`
`determine whether the interests in sealing the records outweigh the public’s right of access, a court
`
`must follow a three-step process: (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) articulate specific reasons and factual findings supporting its decision to
`
`seal. Ashcraft, 218 F.3d at 302; 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). All three requirements are satisfied here.
`
`First, the public has received notice of the request to seal and will have a reasonable
`
`opportunity to object. In accordance with Local Civil Rule 5 procedures, this sealing motion was
`
`publicly docketed, satisfying the first requirement. Counterclaim Defendants will have an
`
`opportunity to respond, and once the “public has had ample opportunity to object” to PMP/Altria’s
`
`motion and “the Court has received no objections,” the first Ashcraft requirement may be deemed
`
`satisfied. See GTSI Corp. v. Wildflower Int’l, Inc., No. 09-cv-00123, 2009 WL 1248114, at *9
`
`(E.D. Va. Apr. 30, 2009); U.S. ex rel. Carter v. Halliburton Co., No. 10-cv-00864, 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.”).
`
`Second, PMP/Altria seeks to seal and to redact from the public record only information
`
`that the parties must keep confidential by the stipulated protective order. PMP/Altria will file
`
`publicly a redacted version of the Motion, in addition to a sealed version. This selective and
`3
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 585 Filed 04/30/21 Page 4 of 6 PageID# 13280
`
`narrow protection of confidential material constitutes “the least drastic method of shielding the
`
`information at issue.” Adams, 2011 WL 7042224, at *4. The public has no legitimate interest in
`
`information confidential to PMP/Altria and Counterclaim Defendants. 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 PMP/Altria seeks to seal and redact
`
`includes confidential, proprietary, and competitively sensitive business information of PMP/Altria,
`
`Counterclaim Defendants, and/or third parties, each of which could face harm if such information
`
`were to be released publicly.
`
`Third, there is support for PMP/Altria’s Motion, under seal, with a publicly filed version
`
`containing strictly limited redactions. As an initial matter, the stipulated protective order requires
`
`that this information remain confidential. And the redacted portions of the Motion only pertain to
`
`this confidential information. Moreover, the exhibits filed under seal contain competitively
`
`sensitive business information. Sealing these materials is therefore proper because the public’s
`
`interest in access is outweighed by a party’s interest in “preserving confidentiality” of limited
`
`amounts of confidential information “normally unavailable to the public.” Flexible Benefits
`
`Council v. Feltman, No. 08-cv-371, 2008 WL 4924711 (E.D. Va. Nov. 13, 2008), at *1; U.S. ex
`
`rel. Carter, 2011 WL 2077799, at *3.
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`
`For the foregoing reasons, PMP/Altria respectfully requests that the Court grant this
`
`Motion and enter the attached proposed Order.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 585 Filed 04/30/21 Page 5 of 6 PageID# 13281
`
`Dated: April 30, 2021
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`
`/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
`Jamie Underwood (pro hac vice)
`LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
`555 Eleventh Street, N.W., Ste. 1000
`Washington, DC 20004
`Tel: (202) 637-2200; Fax: (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 K. Sobolski (pro hac vice)
`Greg.sobolski@lw.com
`LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
`505 Montgomery Street, Suite 2000
`San Francisco, CA 94111
`Tel: (415) 391-0600; Fax: (415) 395-8095
`
`Brenda L. Danek (pro hac vice)
`brenda.danek@lw.com
`LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
`330 North Wabash Avenue, Suite 2800
`Chicago, IL 60611
`Tel: (312) 876-7700; Fax: (312) 993-9767
`
`Counsel for Defendants Altria Client
`Services LLC, Philip Morris USA Inc., and
`Philip Morris Products S.A.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 585 Filed 04/30/21 Page 6 of 6 PageID# 13282
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`
`
`I hereby certify that on this 30th 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)
`max.grant@lw.com
`LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
`555 Eleventh Street, N.W., Suite 1000
`Washington, DC 20004
`Telephone: (202) 637-2200
`Facsimile: (202) 637-2201
`
`
`Counsel for Defendants Altria Client
`Services LLC, Philip Morris USA Inc., and
`Philip Morris Products S.A.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`