Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 673-1 Filed 05/27/21 Page 1 of 4 PageID# 15206
`
`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 PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO SEAL
`
`This matter is before the Court on the motion filed by Plaintiffs RAI Strategic Holdings,
`
`Inc. and R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) to file under seal un-redacted
`
`copies of the Reply in Support of Plaintiffs’ Partial Motion to Stay Further Proceedings on the
`
`Claim of Philip Morris Products S.A. Seeking Injunction Relief and accompanying Exhibits C
`
`and D, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2(d) and Local Civil Rule 5(C).
`
`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.
`
`Conoco, Inc., 218 F.3d 282, 288 (4th Cir. 2000) (internal citations omitted). Upon consideration
`
`of Plaintiffs’ motion to seal and its memorandum in support thereof, the Court hereby FINDS as
`
`follows:
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 673-1 Filed 05/27/21 Page 2 of 4 PageID# 15207
`
`1.
`
`The public has received notice of the request to seal and has had reasonable
`
`opportunity to object. Plaintiffs’ sealing motion was publicly docketed in accordance with Local
`
`Civil Rule 5. Defendants have had an opportunity to respond. The “public has had ample
`
`opportunity to object” to Plaintiffs’ motion and, because “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.
`
`Plaintiffs seek to seal and redact from the public record only information
`
`designated by the parties as confidential. Plaintiffs have filed publicly redacted versions of the
`
`Reply in Support of Plaintiffs’ Partial Motion to Stay Further Proceedings on the Claim of Philip
`
`Morris Products S.A. Seeking Injunction Relief and accompanying Exhibits C and D, in addition
`
`to sealed versions, 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. The information that Plaintiffs seek to seal includes
`
`confidential, proprietary, and competitively sensitive business information of Plaintiffs,
`
`Defendants, and/or third parties, each of which could face harm if such information were to be
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 673-1 Filed 05/27/21 Page 3 of 4 PageID# 15208
`
`released publicly. Specifically, the sensitive information that Plaintiffs move for leave to file
`
`under seal and to redact from the public version are:
`
`• Reply in Support of Plaintiffs’ Partial Motion to Stay Further Proceedings on the
`Claim of Philip Morris Products S.A. Seeking Injunction Relief;
`
`• Exhibit C: May 24, 2021, correspondence between counsel; and
`
`• Exhibit D: April 16, 2021, deposition transcript excerpts of PMP’s corporate
`witness.
`
`3.
`
`There is support for filing un-redacted copies of the Reply in Support of
`
`Plaintiffs’ Partial Motion to Stay Further Proceedings on the Claim of Philip Morris Products
`
`S.A. Seeking Injunction Relief and accompanying Exhibits C and D under seal. The Reply in
`
`Support of Plaintiffs’ Partial Motion to Stay Further Proceedings on the Claim of Philip Morris
`
`Products S.A. Seeking Injunction Relief and accompanying Exhibits C and D contain material
`
`that falls within the scope of the stipulated protective order. 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. 1:08-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 shown, it is hereby
`
`ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED, and Plaintiffs are granted leave to file
`
`REDACTED versions of the Reply in Support of Plaintiffs’ Partial Motion to Stay Further
`
`Proceedings on the Claim of Philip Morris Products S.A. Seeking Injunction Relief and
`
`accompanying Exhibits C and D.
`
`And to file UNDER SEAL un-redacted versions of the Reply in Support of Plaintiffs’
`
`Partial Motion to Stay Further Proceedings on the Claim of Philip Morris Products S.A. Seeking
`
`Injunction Relief and accompanying Exhibits C and D.
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 673-1 Filed 05/27/21 Page 4 of 4 PageID# 15209
`
`And FURTHER ORDERED that the un-redacted versions of the Reply in Support of
`
`Plaintiffs’ Partial Motion to Stay Further Proceedings on the Claim of Philip Morris Products
`
`S.A. Seeking Injunction Relief and accompanying Exhibits C and D shall remain SEALED until
`
`further order of the Court.
`
`
`
`ENTERED this _____ day of _________________, 2021.
`
`Alexandria, Virginia
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`__________________________________________
`
`THERESA CARROLL BUCHANAN
`
`UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
`
`