Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 614 Filed 05/14/21 Page 1 of 15 PageID# 13935
`
`IN THE 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.
`
`Case No. 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB
`
`REDACTED
`FILED UNDER SEAL
`
`R.J. REYNOLDS VAPOR COMPANY’S MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO
`COMPEL DEFENDANT PHILIP MORRIS PRODUCTS S.A. TO DESIGNATE RULE 30(b)(6)
`WITNESSES RELATING TO PHILIP MORRIS PRODUCTS S.A.’S CLAIM FOR A
`PERMANENT INJUNCTION
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 614 Filed 05/14/21 Page 2 of 15 PageID# 13936
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................................ 1
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND ...................................................................................................... 2
`LEGAL STANDARD .................................................................................................................. 6
`ARGUMENT ................................................................................................................................ 6
`CONCLUSION .......................................................................................................................... 10
`
`Page
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-i-
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 614 Filed 05/14/21 Page 3 of 15 PageID# 13937
`
`
`
`
`
`CASES
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, LLC,
`547 U.S. 388 (2006) ......................................................................................................... passim
`
`Loboa v. Women’s Health Alliance, P.A.,
`No. 5:18-cv-329-FL, 2020 WL 889739 (E.D.N.C. Feb. 24, 2020) ...........................................6
`
`NewMarket Corp. v. Innospec Inc.,
`No. 10-cv-503, 2011 WL 1306008 (E.D. Va. Apr. 1, 2011) .....................................................6
`
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6).......................................................................................................... passim
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(3)(B) ..............................................................................................................2
`
`Local Civil Rule 37 ......................................................................................................................2, 6
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 614 Filed 05/14/21 Page 4 of 15 PageID# 13938
`
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`In June 2020, Defendant Philip Morris Products S.A. (“PMP”) lodged counterclaims
`
`against Plaintiff R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company (“RJRV”), asserting that three of PMP’s patents
`
`are infringed by one or more of RJRV’s VUSE line of vaping products. Nearly nine months later,
`
`PMP sought and (over RJRV’s objection) was allowed to add a claim for injunctive relief—
`
`seeking to exclude the VUSE products completely from the U.S. market. (Dkt. 463, 483.) This is
`
`an extraordinary request that,
`
`
`
` To justify a
`
`permanent injunction, PMP bears the burden to prove that: (i) it has suffered irreparable injury,
`
`(ii) remedies available at law, such as monetary damages, are inadequate to compensate for that
`
`injury, (iii) considering the balance of hardships between PMP and RJRV, a remedy in equity is
`
`warranted, and (iv) the public interest would not be disserved by a permanent injunction. See eBay
`
`Inc. v. MercExchange, LLC, 547 U.S. 388, 291 (2006). Despite the fact that PMP bears the burden
`
`on these issues, however, it has inexplicably refused to produce witnesses to testify about the
`
`complete factual bases underlying its injunction claim.
`
`Instead, after weeks of effort from RJRV to get complete answers to its simple discovery
`
`requests relating to PMP’s new claim, the most PMP will commit to do is produce witnesses to
`
`cover certain limited sub-topics of PMP’s own choosing, leaving no one to testify about critical
`
`issues like irreparable harm and public interest. For example, and as discussed in more detail
`
`below, Topic 68 is a straightforward request asking PMP to designate a witness to testify about its
`
`contentions underlying each of the four eBay factors. The relevance of this request is beyond
`
`question. Nevertheless, PMP has refused. Rather than put forward a witness to testify about the
`
`full scope of its injunction-related claims, PMP insists that it will only offer testimony
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 614 Filed 05/14/21 Page 5 of 15 PageID# 13939
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` In so doing, PMP has unilaterally redefined the noticed topics into
`
`narrow carve-outs that do not cover the full scope of the eBay factors PMP must prove, nor the
`
`full scope of issues laid out in PMP’s own interrogatory answers.
`
`PMP’s position is indefensible. Having asserted this claim, PMP must allow discovery of
`
`it, including by making witnesses available so that RJRV can test PMP’s assertions and secure
`
`testimony that will be binding on PMP as a company. For the reasons discussed further below,
`
`and pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(3)(B) and Local Civil Rule 37, RJRV respectfully requests
`
`that this Court enter an Order compelling PMP to designate one or more witnesses to testify
`
`regarding the complete subject matter described in Topic Nos. 68-70, 72, 76, and 83 from
`
`Plaintiffs’ Second Notice of Rule 30(b)(6) Deposition of PMP.
`
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND
`
`RJRV served its Rule 30(b)(6) notice to PMP on April 7, 2021, and included specific
`
`requests for one or more witnesses to testify on behalf of PMP about topics (numbered 68-83)
`
`relating to its request for injunctive relief. (Ex. 1 [Apr. 7, 2021, RJRV’s 30(b)(6) Notice].) The
`
`topics in dispute are shown in the chart below:
`
`Topic 68
`
`Topic 69
`
`
`
`The factual bases underlying PMP’s contention, including PMP’s response
`to Interrogatory Nos. 23–24, that (i) PMP has suffered irreparable injury,
`(ii) remedies available at law, such as monetary damages, are inadequate to
`compensate for that injury, (iii) considering the balance of hardships
`between PMP and Reynolds, a remedy in equity is warranted, and (iv) the
`public interest would be properly served by a permanent injunction.
`
`Each fact that PMP alleges supports PMP’s request for a permanent
`injunction and that was not present and/or known to PMP on or before June
`29, 2020, including when each such fact became known to PMP.
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 614 Filed 05/14/21 Page 6 of 15 PageID# 13940
`
`
`
`Topic 70
`
`Topic 72
`
`Topic 76
`
`Topic 83
`
`Any and all harms or injury PMP alleges PMP has suffered or will suffer
`from Reynolds’s alleged infringement, absent entry of an injunction.
`
`All equitable considerations applicable to PMP’s request for injunctive relief.
`
`The drivers of demand for the Reynolds Accused Products.
`
`PMP’s contentions regarding whether and to what extent Reynolds would
`suffer any hardships if the Reynolds Accused Products were enjoined.
`
`(Ex. 1 [Apr. 7, 2021, RJRV’s 30(b)(6) Notice] at 5-9, 14, 16, and 21.)
`
`On April 21, PMP responded that it (i) would provide witnesses to testify on the full scope
`
`of Topic Nos. 68 and 70, as well as certain other topics that are not at issue in this motion; and (ii)
`
`it would not produce a witness for the remaining topics in the chart above. (Ex. 2 [Apr. 21, 2021,
`
`PMP’s Response to RJRV’s 30(b)(6) Notice] at 6-22.) Also on April 21, PMP designated
`
` as to certain topics, but not 68 or 70. (Ex. 3 [Apr. 21, 2021, Koh Email to
`
`Smith] at 1.)
`
`Within hours of receiving that response, RJRV asked PMP who it was designating for
`
`Topic No. 68, considering that it is the broad topic speaking to the factual bases for PMP’s claims
`
`as to each of the eBay factors, and essentially is the anchor for all of RJRV’s other, more specific
`
`requests. Having received no reply, on April 22, RJRV asked PMP again to “confirm who the
`
`witnesses will be on Topics 68 and 70” and to confirm that PMP would designate witnesses on the
`
`remaining topics. (Ex. 4 [Apr. 22, 2021, Smith Letter to Koh] at 1-2.)
`
` was the only person that PMP had identified, by email, in response to RJRV’s
`
`interrogatory seeking the identities of the 3 persons most knowledgeable about the factual bases
`
`for the injunction claim (and even that identification only came after RJRV pushed back on PMP’s
`
`initial position that, because the propriety of injunctive relief is a matter of law, it was not required
`
`to identify any fact witnesses at all). Having named
`
` as the only person with factual
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 614 Filed 05/14/21 Page 7 of 15 PageID# 13941
`
`
`knowledge of its contentions, RJRV questioned why she was not designated by PMP as the Rule
`
`30(b)(6) witness on the remaining injunction-related topics, including 68. (Ex. 5 [Apr. 23, 2021,
`
`Michalik Letter to Koh] at 2.)
`
`In response, PMP designated
`
` for Topic Nos. 68, 70, and 72. Although PMP
`
`had agreed in its April 21 formal response to the deposition notice to provide one or more
`
`witnesses to testify to the complete scope of Topic 68, PMP changed its position. PMP unilaterally
`
`elected to designate
`
` solely
`
`
`
`
`
` phrases that appear nowhere in RJRV’s deposition notice. Similarly, PMP designated
`
` for Topics 70 and 72, but again only
`
`
`
`
`
` (Ex. 6 [Apr. 23, 2021, Koh Email to Smith] at 1.)
`
`On April 26, RJRV asked PMP to provide designees for outstanding 30(b)(6) topics,
`
`including the remaining scope of Topic Nos. 68, 70, and 72 that the limited scope of testimony
`
`offered from
`
` did not cover, and Topic Nos. 69, 76, 78, and 83. (Ex. 7 [Apr. 26, 2021,
`
`Smith Email to Koh] at 1.) In response, PMP designated
`
` as to Topic Nos. 68, 70, and
`
`72, but again only as to limited subjects of PMP’s unilateral choosing. Specifically,
`
`offered solely
`
` was
`
`
`
` (Ex. 8 [May 4,
`
`2021, Koh Letter to Michalik] at 1-2.)
`
`RJRV wrote to PMP on May 10 to ask—again—that PMP “designate the witness or
`
`witnesses who will testify regarding the factual bases for PMP’s claim for injunctive relief.” (Ex.
`
`9 [May 10, 2021, Smith Letter to Koh] at 1.) At a minimum, RJRV asked that PMP “confirm
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 614 Filed 05/14/21 Page 8 of 15 PageID# 13942
`
`
`whether [PMP] intend[s] to offer additional designees to speak for the full scope of Topics 68, 70,
`
`and 72, beyond the sub-topics [PMP] . . . unilaterally chose[] for
`
`” or,
`
`in the alternative, “confirm that [PMP] will not do so, and that PMP thus does not intend to offer
`
`any factual evidence or testimony on the eBay factors beyond the limited areas to be addressed by
`
`.” (Id. at 2.) Additionally, RJRV requested that PMP designate
`
`witnesses on Topic Nos. 69, 76, 78, and 83. (Id.) RJRV followed up on these issues again by
`
`letter on May 12, 2021. (Ex. 10 [May 12, 2021, Michalik Letter to Koh].)
`
`With no further movement from PMP, the parties had a meet and confer on May 13, 2021
`
`to discuss these issues. RJRV sought a definitive position from PMP as to whether it was truly
`
`limiting its response to the Rule 30(b)(6) topics, including Topic 68, to just the narrow subjects
`
`offered for
`
`, or whether additional designations were forthcoming as to
`
`the full scope of Topic 68 and as to the remaining topics. In terms of the timing of depositions,
`
`both sides agreed that they do not want to present witnesses more than once; thus, the additional
`
`documents each side intends to produce in response to injunction-specific requests should be
`
`produced in advance of those depositions. RJRV therefore proposed a reasonable, orderly process
`
`whereby PMP would complete its production of documents in response to injunction-related
`
`requests, and then RJRV could conduct the depositions of PMP’s designees not less than 5 days
`
`later, to give RJRV time to review those new materials in advance of the depositions. RJRV
`
`offered to follow the same protocol as to its own injunction-related designee, whose deposition
`
`would follow those of PMP, and suggested that all of this could be accomplished by early-to-mid
`
`June, depending on PMP’s ability to complete its document production. (Ex. 11 [May 13, 2021,
`
`Smith Email to Koh].)
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 614 Filed 05/14/21 Page 9 of 15 PageID# 13943
`
`
`
`RJRV made clear that the key to the entire process was for PMP, as the party with the
`
`burden of proof, to at last commit to provide witnesses in response to the full scope of RJRV’s
`
`Rule 30(b)(6) requests, and to identify the designees. (Id.) RJRV requested that commitment by
`
`close of business, or it would consider the parties to be at an impasse. (Id.) Unfortunately, no
`
`such confirmation was provided. PMP finally responded to RJRV’s May 10 letter on the evening
`
`of May 13 after the close of business, but merely parroted its previous carve outs and objections.
`
`(See Ex. 12 [May 13, 2021, Koh Letter to Smith].)
`
`Because PMP’s letter failed to resolve the parties’ disputes regarding Topic Nos. 68-70,
`
`72, 76, and 83 and because PMP refuses to designate witnesses concerning topics that are
`
`obviously relevant to its permanent injunction claim, RJRV has no choice but to seek relief from
`
`the Court.
`
`LEGAL STANDARD
`
`Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6) requires corporate parties to identify and
`
`adequately prepare designees to provide “information known or reasonably available to the
`
`organization.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6). A corporate party must make “‘a conscientious, good-
`
`faith effort to designate knowledgeable persons for Rule 30(b)(6) depositions and to prepare them
`
`to fully and unevasively answer questions about the designated subject matter.’” Loboa v.
`
`Women’s Health Alliance, P.A., No. 5:18-cv-329-FL, 2020 WL 889739, at *2 (E.D.N.C. Feb. 24,
`
`2020) (citations omitted). A Rule 37 motion to compel is appropriate when a corporate party fails
`
`to designate a witness under Rule 30(b)(6). See NewMarket Corp. v. Innospec Inc., No. 10-cv-503,
`
`2011 WL 1306008, at *6 (E.D. Va. Apr. 1, 2011) (Lauck, J.).
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`The plain facts illustrate that PMP has fallen short of its responsibility to identify designees
`
`to provide “information known or reasonably available to the organization.” Fed. R. Civ. P.
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 614 Filed 05/14/21 Page 10 of 15 PageID# 13944
`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 614 Filed 05/14/21 Page 10 of 15 Page|D# 13944
`
`30(b)(6). Despite the nearly seven weeks since RJRV served its first injunction—related Rule
`
`30(b)(6) notice, PMP has yet to designate a witness on the remaining (significant) scope of Topic
`
`Nos. 68, 70, and 72, and has not designated a witness at all for Topic Nos. 69, 76, and 83.
`
`At best, PIVIP’s combined designations for Topic Nos. 68, 70, and 72 in particular, fail to
`
`cover the majority of those topics’ scope. PMP’s self—serving carve-outs fail to fully address, at
`
`least, the portion of RJRV’s topics in bolded red font below:
`
`
`
`RJRV’s To n ics
`
`Topic No. 68:
`The factual bases underlying PMP’s contention,
`including PMP’s response to Interrogatory Nos.
`23—24, that (i) PMP has suffered irreparable
`
`injury, (ii) remedies available at law, such as
`
`monetary
`
`damages,
`
`are
`
`inadequate
`
`to
`
`compensate for that injury, (iii) considering the
`balance of hardships between PMP and
`Reynolds, a remedy in equity is warranted, and
`(iv)
`the public interest would be properly
`
`served by a permanent injunction.
`
`Topic No. 70:
`Any and all harms or injury PMP alleges PIVIP
`has suffered or will suffer from Reynolds’s alleged
`infringement, absent entry of an injlmction.
`
`PMP’s Carve Outs
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(same limitations as Topic
`
`
`
`
`
`(same limitations as Topic No.
`
`
`(same limitations as Topic
`
`Topic No. 72
`All equitable considerations applicable to No.68
`PMP’s request for injunctive relief.
`
`
`
`PMP may say (and has said) that the limited subjects offered for—
`
`(same limitations as Topic No.
`
`68
`
`are related to the eBay factors in some way, but they are at best a subset of the relevant issues, and
`
`a small subset at that. RJRV is entitled to examine witnesses on the full scope of PMP’s
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 614 Filed 05/14/21 Page 11 of 15 PageID# 13945
`
`
`contentions on each of the eBay factors. PMP should not be allowed to evade that discovery
`
`through the use of artful, and unilateral, limitations for its designees.
`
`PMP has also refused to designate anyone on any portion of Topic Nos. 69, 76, and 83:
`
`• Topic No. 69: Each fact that PMP alleges supports PMP’s request for a permanent
`
`injunction and that was not present and/or known to PMP on or before June 29, 2020,
`
`including when each such fact became known to PMP.
`
`• Topic No. 76: The drivers of demand for the Reynolds Accused Products.
`
`• Topic No. 83: PMP’s contentions regarding whether and to what extent Reynolds would
`
`suffer any hardships if the Reynolds Accused Products were enjoined.
`
`
`
`Each of these topics is relevant and RJRV is entitled to PMP’s testimony on them.
`
`Topic No. 69 relates to facts that PMP alleges support its request for a permanent
`
`injunction, and when PMP knew those facts. As RJRV already explained to PMP,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` (Ex. 9 [May 10, 2021, Smith
`
`Letter to Koh] at 2-3.) PMP did not seek injunctive relief when its patents issued. Even after PMP
`
`filed its counterclaims, PMP still waited nearly an additional nine months before introducing a
`
`claim for injunctive relief. Facts underlying the reasons for PMP’s delay are clearly relevant. PMP
`
`has nonetheless refused a witness, stating that the topic is
`
` (Ex. 12 [May 13, 2021,
`
`Koh Letter to Smith] at 2.)
`
`With respect to Topic Nos. 76 and 83, PMP’s response to both topics is that PMP
`
`
`
` on this topic. (Ex. 12 [May 13, 2021, Koh Letter to
`
`Smith] at 2-3.) If it is PMP’s position that it has no corporate knowledge whatsoever on these
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 614 Filed 05/14/21 Page 12 of 15 PageID# 13946
`
`
`topics and it will rely solely on documents and witnesses from RJRV, PMP must say that in a
`
`straightforward way. Otherwise, it must produce a witness.
`
` Topic No. 76
`
`(the drivers of demand for the Reynolds Accused Products) directly relevant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Similarly, with respect to Topic No. 83 (PMP’s contentions regarding whether and to what extent
`
`Reynolds would suffer any hardships if the Reynolds Accused Products were enjoined), PMP bears
`
`the burden on the balance of harms eBay factor.
`
`
`
`Despite RJRV’s repeated requests that PMP identify witnesses on the injunction-related
`
`topics, PMP either refused to designate witnesses at all, or has limited its designees’ scope of
`
`testimony so much that the vast majority of RJRV’s topics remain unaddressed. Worse yet, besides
`
`being non-responsive and obfuscating the issues, PMP’s responses to RJRV’s requests are often
`
`accusatory and filled with false suggestions that RJRV is somehow delaying discovery on PMP’s
`
`own claim as to which PMP—not RJRV—bears the burden of proof.
`
`
`
`Considering that it is the party who injected this injunctive relief claim late into the case,
`
`it is inexplicable that PMP is resisting RJRV’s requests seeking discovery of PMP’s purported
`
`factual bases supporting PMP’s request for an injunction. Indeed, PMP is fighting tooth-and-nail
`
`to prevent RJRV from seeking even the purported facts underlying the eBay factors that PMP bears
`
`the burden of proving.
`
`
`
`If PMP has reconsidered its request and no longer wishes to prosecute the claim for
`
`injunctive relief, it needs to say so. Otherwise, PMP must meaningfully engage in the discovery
`
`process, in good faith, and fulfill its Rule 30(b)(6) responsibility to designate witnesses on the full
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 614 Filed 05/14/21 Page 13 of 15 PageID# 13947
`
`
`scope of Topic Nos. 68-70, 72, 76, and 83, and to make those witnesses available a reasonable
`
`time after Defendants complete their additional production of injunction-related documents.
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`
`
`RJRV respectfully requests that the Court order PMP to designate a corporate witness or
`
`witnesses to testify on the full scope of Topic Nos. 68-70, 72, 76, and 83; and for PMP to make
`
`those designees available at least 5 days after Defendants complete their production of injunction-
`
`related document discovery.
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 614 Filed 05/14/21 Page 14 of 15 PageID# 13948
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`
` /s/ David M. Maiorana
`David M. Maiorana (VA Bar No. 42334)
`Ryan B. McCrum
`JONES DAY
`901 Lakeside Ave.
`Cleveland, OH 44114
`Telephone: (216) 586-3939
`Facsimile: (216) 579-0212
`Email: dmaiorana@jonesday.com
`Email: rbmccrum@jonesday.com
`
`John J. Normile
`JONES DAY
`250 Vesey Street
`New York, NY 10281
`Telephone: (212) 326-3939
`Facsimile: (212) 755-7306
`Email: jjnormile@jonesday.com
`
`
`Alexis A. Smith
`JONES DAY
`555 South Flower Street
`Fiftieth Floor
`Los Angeles, CA 90071
`Telephone: (213) 243-2653
`Facsimile: (213) 243-2539
`Email: asmith@jonesday.com
`
`Charles B. Molster, III Va. Bar No. 23613
`THE LAW OFFICES OF
`CHARLES B. MOLSTER, III PLLC
`2141 Wisconsin Avenue, N.W. Suite M
`Washington, DC 20007
`Telephone: (703) 346-1505
`Email: cmolster@molsterlaw.com
`
`Counsel for Plaintiffs RAI Strategic Holdings,
`Inc. and R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company
`
`
`Dated: May 14, 2021
`
`
`
`Stephanie E. Parker
`JONES DAY
`1420 Peachtree Street, N.E.
`Suite 800
`Atlanta, GA 30309
`Telephone: (404) 521-3939
`Facsimile: (404) 581-8330
`Email: separker@jonesday.com
`
`
`Anthony M. Insogna
`JONES DAY
`4655 Executive Drive
`Suite 1500
`San Diego, CA 92121
`Telephone: (858) 314-1200
`Facsimile: (844) 345-3178
`Email: aminsogna@jonesday.com
`
`William E. Devitt
`JONES DAY
`77 West Wacker
`Suite 3500
`Chicago, IL 60601
`Telephone: (312) 269-4240
`Facsimile: (312) 782-8585
`Email: wdevitt@jonesday.com
`
`Sanjiv P. Laud
`JONES DAY
`90 South Seventh Street
`Suite 4950
`Minneapolis, MN 55402
`Telephone: (612) 217-8800
`Facsimile: (844) 345-3178
`Email: slaud@jonesday.com
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 614 Filed 05/14/21 Page 15 of 15 PageID# 13949
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`
`
`I hereby certify that on this 14th day of May, 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
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ David M. Maiorana
`David M. Maiorana (VA Bar No. 42334)
`JONES DAY
`901 Lakeside Ave.
`Cleveland, OH 44114
`Telephone: (216) 586-3939
`Facsimile: (216) 579-0212
`Email: dmaiorana@jonesday.com
`
`Counsel for Plaintiffs RAI Strategic Holdings,
`Inc. and R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company
`
`counsel of record.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`