Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 703-1 Filed 06/08/21 Page 1 of 4 PageID# 17128
`
`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 Defendant Philip Morris Products
`
`S.A. (“PMP”) and Altria Client Services, LLC (“Altria”) (or collectively “PMP/Altria” or
`
`“Defendants”) to seal an un-redacted version of Defendants PMP/Altria’s Memorandum in
`
`Support of Their Motion for Summary Judgment and accompanying Exhibits 5-11, 18, and 21
`
`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”), 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 703-1 Filed 06/08/21 Page 2 of 4 PageID# 17129
`
`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 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
`
`their Memorandum in Support of Their Motion for Summary Judgment and accompanying
`
`Exhibits 5-11, 18, and 21 (Dkt. 696), in addition to a sealed version (Dkt. 694), and has redacted
`
`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. 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 Defendants
`
`and Plaintiffs. Id. at *4 (“[T]here is no legitimate public interest in disclosing the proprietary and
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 703-1 Filed 06/08/21 Page 3 of 4 PageID# 17130
`
`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 information of Defendants,
`
`Plaintiffs, 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 proprietary and commercially
`
`sensitive business, financial, and design information of Defendants, Plaintiffs, and/or third
`
`parties.
`
`3.
`
`There is support for filing portions of Defendants PMP/Altria’s Memorandum in
`
`Support of Their Motion for Summary Judgment and accompanying Exhibits 5-11, 18, and 21
`
`under seal, with a publicly filed version containing strictly limited redactions. Defendants’
`
`Memorandum in Support of Their Motion for Summary Judgment and accompanying Exhibits 5-
`
`11, 18, and 21 contain materials that fall 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-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
`
`REDACTED version of Defendants PMP/Altria’s Memorandum in Support of Their Motion for
`
`Summary Judgment and accompanying Exhibits 5-11, 18, and 21 .
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 703-1 Filed 06/08/21 Page 4 of 4 PageID# 17131
`
`And to file UNDER SEAL an un-redacted version of Defendants PMP/Altria’s
`
`Memorandum in Support of Their Motion for Summary Judgment and accompanying Exhibits 5-
`
`11, 18, and 21.
`
`And FURTHER ORDERED that the un-redacted version of Defendants PMP/Altria’s
`
`Memorandum in Support of Their Motion for Summary Judgment and accompanying Exhibits 5-
`
`11, 18, and 21 shall remain SEALED until further order of the Court.
`
`
`
`ENTERED this _____ day of _________________, 2021.
`
`Alexandria, Virginia
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`__________________________________________
`
`