`
`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,
`
`Civil Action No. 1:20-cv-393-LO-TCB
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; PHILIP
`MORRIS USA INC.; and PHILIP MORRIS
`PRODUCTS S.A.
`
`Defendants and Counterclaim
`Plaintiffs.
`
`
`[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING COUNTERCLAIM PLAINTIFFS’
`MOTION TO SEAL
`
`This matter is before the Court on the motion filed by Counterclaim Plaintiffs Altria Client
`
`Services LLC (“ACS”), Philip Morris USA Inc. (“PM USA”), and Philip Morris Products S.A.
`
`(“PMP”) (collectively, “PMP/Altria”) to file PMP/Altria’s Memorandum in Support of Their
`
`Motion to Compel Deposition Dates, and Exhibits 3, 4 and 6-11 thereto, under seal pursuant to
`
`Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2(d) and Local Civil Rule 5(C). Upon consideration of
`
`PMP/Altria’s 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. PMP/Altria’s sealing motion was publicly docketed in accordance with
`
`Local Civil Rule 5. Counterclaim Defendants RAI Strategic Holdings, Inc. and R.J. Reynolds
`
`Vapor Co. have had an opportunity to respond. The “public has had ample opportunity to object”
`
`to PMP/Altria’s motion and, since “the Court has received no objections,” the first requirement
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 618-1 Filed 05/14/21 Page 2 of 3 PageID# 14027
`
`
`
`under Ashcraft v. Conoco, Inc., 218 F.3d 288, 302 (4th Cir. 2000), 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.
`
`PMP/Altria seeks to seal and to redact from the public record only information
`
`designated by the parties as confidential. PMP/Altria will file publicly a redacted version of their
`
`Memorandum in Support of Their Motion to Compel Deposition Dates, in addition to a sealed
`
`version, and will redact only those limited portions it seeks to seal. The exhibits sealed are properly
`
`designated as confidential. 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-DWD, 2011 WL 7042224, at *4 (E.D. Va. Dec. 5, 2011)
`
`(finding that 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 PMP/Altria seeks to seal 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.
`
`
`
`3.
`
`There is support for filing portions of PMP/Altria’s Memorandum in Support of
`
`Their Motion to Compel Deposition Dates under seal, with a publicly filed version containing
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 618-1 Filed 05/14/21 Page 3 of 3 PageID# 14028
`
`
`
`strictly limited redactions. PMP/Altria’s Memorandum in Support of Their Motion to Compel
`
`Deposition Dates and the accompanying exhibits contain material designated confidential under
`
`the stipulated protective order, which requires PMP/Altria 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. l: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 show, it is hereby
`
`ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED, and PMP/Altria is granted leave to file a
`
`REDACTED version of their Memorandum in Support of Counterclaim Plaintiffs’ Motion to
`
`Compel Deposition Dates.
`
`And to file UNDER SEAL an unredacted version of PMP/Altria’s Memorandum in
`
`Support of Their Motion to Compel Deposition Dates and Exhibits 3, 4 and 6-11 thereto.
`
`
`
`And FURTHER ORDERED that the unredacted version of PMP/Altria’s Memorandum
`
`in Support of Their Motion to Compel Deposition Dates, as well as Exhibits 3, 4 and 6-11 thereto,
`
`shall remain SEALED until further order of the Court.
`
`ENTERED this ____ day of __________, 2021.
`
`Alexandria, Virginia
`
`__________________________________
`
`
`
`3
`
`