`
`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 Plaintiff Philip Morris
`
`Products S.A. (“PMP”) to file Philip Morris Products S.A.’s Opposition to Reynolds’ Motion for
`
`Relief from Stipulated Deposition Dates, and Exhibits 2, 8, 9, and 10 thereto, under seal pursuant
`
`to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2(d) and Local Civil Rule 5(C). Upon consideration of PMP’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.
`
`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. 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
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 722-1 Filed 06/16/21 Page 2 of 3 PageID# 17806
`
`
`
`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 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 their Opposition to
`
`Reynolds’ Motion for Relief from Stipulated 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 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 portions of PMP’s Opposition to Reynolds’ Motion for
`
`Relief from Stipulated Deposition Dates under seal, with a publicly filed version containing strictly
`
`limited redactions. PMP’s Opposition to Motion for Relief from Stipulated Deposition Dates and
`
`the accompanying exhibits contain material designated confidential under the stipulated protective
`
`order, which requires PMP to file this material under seal. Furthermore, placing these materials
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 722-1 Filed 06/16/21 Page 3 of 3 PageID# 17807
`
`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 is granted leave to file a
`
`REDACTED version of their Opposition to Motion for Relief from Stipulated Deposition Dates.
`
`And to file UNDER SEAL an unredacted version of PMP’s Opposition to Motion for Relief
`
`from Stipulated Deposition Dates and Exhibits 2, 8, 9, and 10 thereto.
`
`
`
`And FURTHER ORDERED that the unredacted version of PMP’s Opposition to
`
`Motion for Relief from Stipulated Deposition Dates, as well as Exhibits 2, 8, 9, and 10
`
`thereto, shall remain SEALED until further order of the Court.
`
`ENTERED this ____ day of __________, 2021.
`
`Alexandria, Virginia
`
`__________________________________
`
`3
`
`