`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING
`COUNTERCLAIM PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO SEAL
`
`This matter is before the Court on the motion (“Motion to Seal”) filed by Counterclaim
`
`Plaintiff Philip Morris Products S.A. (“PMP”) to file PMP’s Opposition to Reynolds’ Partial
`
`Motion to Stay Injunctive Relief Discovery under seal pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
`
`5.2(d) and Local Civil Rule 5(C). Upon consideration of Counterclaim Plaintiff’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’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.
`
`(“Counterclaim Defendants”) have had an opportunity to respond. The “public has had ample
`
`opportunity to object” to PMP’s motion and, since “the Court has received no objections,” the first
`
`requirement under Ashcraft v. Conoco, Inc., 218 F.3d 288, 302 (4th Cir. 2000), has been satisfied.
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 664-1 Filed 05/26/21 Page 2 of 3 PageID# 14987
`
`
`
`GTSI Corp. v. Wildflower Int’l, Inc., No. 09-cv-123, 2009 WL 1248114, at *9 (E.D. Va. Apr. 30,
`
`2009); U.S. ex rel. Carter v. Halliburton Co., No. 10-cv-864, 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 seeks to seal and to redact from the public record only information designated
`
`by the parties as confidential. PMP will file publicly a redacted version of the Motion, in addition
`
`to a sealed version, and will redact only those limited portions it seeks 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. 11-cv-272, 2011 WL 7042224, at *4
`
`(E.D. Va. Dec. 5, 2011) (finding 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 seeks to seal
`
`includes confidential, proprietary, and competitively sensitive business information of PMP,
`
`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 PMP’s Memorandum in Support of PMP’s Opposition
`
`to Reynolds’ Partial Motion to Stay Injunctive Relief Discovery and Exhibits 2-7 under seal, with
`
`a publicly filed version containing strictly limited redactions. The Motion and Exhibits 2-7 contain
`
`material designated confidential under the stipulated protective order, which requires PMP to file
`
`this material under seal. Furthermore, placing these materials under seal is proper because the
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 664-1 Filed 05/26/21 Page 3 of 3 PageID# 14988
`
`
`
`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. 08-cv-00371, 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 is granted leave to file a
`
`REDACTED version of PMP’s Opposition to Reynolds’ Partial Motion to Stay Injunctive Relief
`
`Discovery.
`
`And to file UNDER SEAL an unredacted version of PMP’s Memorandum in Support of
`
`PMP’s Opposition to Reynolds’ Partial Motion to Stay Injunctive Relief Discovery and Exhibits
`
`2-7.
`
`
`
`And FURTHER ORDERED that the unredacted version of PMP’s Opposition to
`
`Reynolds’ Partial Motion to Stay Injunctive Relief Discovery shall remain SEALED until further
`
`order of the Court.
`
`
`
`ENTERED this ____ day of __________, 2021.
`
`Alexandria, Virginia
`
`__________________________________
`
`
`
`3
`
`