Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 633-1 Filed 05/20/21 Page 1 of 4 PageID# 14274
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO SEAL
`
`This matter is before the Court on the motion filed by Defendants Altria Client Services,
`
`LLC (“ACS”), Philip Morris USA Inc. (“PM USA”), and Philip Morris Products S.A. (“PMP”)
`
`(collectively, “Defendants”) to seal an un-redacted version of Defendants’ Memorandum in
`
`Support of Their Motion to Compel Deposition Dates, and Exhibits 3, 4 and 6-11, pursuant to
`
`Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2(d) and Local Civil Rule 5(C). Because the documents that
`
`Defendants seek to seal contain confidential, proprietary, and competitively sensitive business,
`
`financial, and design information of the Plaintiffs RAI Strategic Holdings, Inc., and R.J.
`
`Reynolds Vapor Company (collectively, “Plaintiffs”), as well as confidential correspondence
`
`among counsel, Plaintiffs filed a memorandum in support of Defendants’ sealing request.
`
`Before this Court may seal documents, it must: “(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) provide specific reasons and factual findings
`
`supporting its decision to seal the documents and for rejecting the alternatives.” Ashcraft v.
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 633-1 Filed 05/20/21 Page 2 of 4 PageID# 14275
`
`Conoco, Inc., 218 F.3d 282, 288 (4th Cir. 2000) (internal citations omitted). Upon consideration
`
`of Defendants’ 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. Defendants’ sealing motion was publicly docketed on May 14 2021, in
`
`accordance with Local Civil Rule 5. Plaintiffs have filed a memorandum in support of sealing.
`
`The “public has had ample opportunity to object” to Defendants’ motion and, since “the Court
`
`has received no objections,” the first requirement under Ashcraft, 218 F.3d at 302, 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.
`
`Defendants seek to seal and redact from the public record only information
`
`designated by the parties as confidential. Defendants have filed publicly a redacted version of
`
`Defendants’ Motion to Compel Deposition Dates, and accompanying Exhibits 3, 4 and 6-11
`
`(Dkt. 616), in addition to a sealed version (Dkt. 620), and have redacted only those limited
`
`portions they seek 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. 3:11-cv-272-REP-DWD, 2011 WL 7042224, at *4 (E.D. Va. Dec. 5, 2011)
`
`(The “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 Plaintiffs. Id.
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 633-1 Filed 05/20/21 Page 3 of 4 PageID# 14276
`
`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 Defendants seek to seal includes confidential,
`
`proprietary, and competitively sensitive business and financial information of Plaintiffs,
`
`Defendants, and/or third parties, each of which could face harm if such information were to be
`
`released publicly. Specifically, the sensitive information that Defendants move for leave to file
`
`under seal, and to redact from a publicly filed version, includes:
`
`• An un-redacted version of Defendants’ Memorandum;
`
`• Exhibit 3, Defendants’ 30(b)(6) Deposition Notice to Plaintiffs (Oct. 20, 2020);
`
`• Exhibit 4, a Deposition Notice served March 30, 2021;
`
`• Exhibit 6, Defendants’ 30(b)(6) Deposition Notice to Plaintiffs (Apr. 21, 2021);
`
`• Exhibit 7, an April 22, 2021 letter from A. Smith to J. Koh;
`
`• Exhibit 8, an April 27, 2021 email from N. Smith to J. Koh;
`
`• Exhibit 9, a May 4, 2021 letter from J. Koh to J. Michalik;
`
`• Exhibit 10, a May 6, 2021 email from J. Koh to N. Smith; and
`
`• Exhibit 11, a May 14, 2021 email from N. Smith to J. Koh.
`
`
`
`3.
`
`There is support for filing portions of Defendants’ Memorandum in Support of
`
`Their Motion to Compel Deposition Dates, and Exhibits 3, 4 and 6-11 under seal, with a publicly
`
`filed version containing strictly limited redactions. Defendants’ Memorandum in Support of
`
`Their Motion to Compel Deposition Dates, and Exhibits 3, 4 and 6-11 contains material that falls
`
`within the scope of the stipulated protective order. Placing these materials under seal is proper
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 633-1 Filed 05/20/21 Page 4 of 4 PageID# 14277
`
`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. 1:08-cv-371-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 shown, it is hereby
`
`ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED, and Defendants are granted leave to file a
`
`REDACTED version of Defendants’ Memorandum in Support of Their Motion to Compel
`
`Deposition Dates, and Exhibits 3, 4 and 6-11.
`
`And to file UNDER SEAL an un-redacted version of Defendants’ Memorandum in
`
`Support of Their Motion to Compel Deposition Dates, and Exhibits 3, 4 and 6-11.
`
`And FURTHER ORDERED that the un-redacted version of Defendants’ Memorandum
`
`in Support of Their Motion to Compel Deposition Dates, and Exhibits 3, 4 and 6-11, shall remain
`
`SEALED until further order of the Court.
`
`
`
`ENTERED this _____ day of _________________, 2021.
`
`Alexandria, Virginia
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`__________________________________________
`
`