`
`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”) to seal an un-redacted version of Defendant PMP’s Opposition to Plaintiffs’
`
`Motion for Relief from Stipulated Deposition Dates and accompanying Exhibits 2, 8, 9, and 10
`
`pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2(d) and Local Civil Rule 5(C). Because the
`
`documents that Defendant PMP seeks 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 Defendant’s 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.
`
`Conoco, Inc., 218 F.3d 282, 288 (4th Cir. 2000) (internal citations omitted). Upon consideration
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 744-1 Filed 06/22/21 Page 2 of 4 PageID# 20321
`
`of Defendant’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. Defendant’s 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 Defendant’s 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.
`
`Defendant seeks to seal and redact from the public record only information
`
`designated by the parties as confidential. Defendant has filed publicly a redacted version of their
`
`Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Relief from Stipulated Deposition Dates and accompanying
`
`Exhibits 2, 8, 9, and 10 (Dkt. 722), in addition to a sealed version (Dkt. 724), 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 Defendant and
`
`Plaintiffs. 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
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 744-1 Filed 06/22/21 Page 3 of 4 PageID# 20322
`
`significant damage to the company.”). The information that Defendant seeks to seal includes
`
`confidential, proprietary, and competitively sensitive business information of Defendant,
`
`Plaintiffs, and/or third parties, each of which could face harm if such information were to be
`
`released publicly. Specifically, the sensitive information that Defendant moves 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 Defendant, Plaintiffs, and/or third parties:
`
`• PMP’s Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Relief from Stipulated Deposition
`
`Dates;
`
`• Exhibit 2, which is confidential correspondence from Jennifer Koh to John
`
`Michalik, (June 11, 2021);
`
`• Exhibit 8, confidential deposition excerpts of Noori Brifcani (April 9, 2021);
`
`• Exhibit 9, confidential deposition excerpts of Masja Hoogland (April 7, 2021);
`
`and
`
`• Exhibit 10, confidential deposition excerpts of Edward Kiernan (April 16, 2021).
`
`3.
`
`There is support for filing portions of Defendant PMP’s Opposition to Plaintiffs’
`
`Motion for Relief from Stipulated Deposition Dates and accompanying Exhibits 2, 8, 9, and 10
`
`under seal, with a publicly filed version containing strictly limited redactions. Defendant’s
`
`Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Relief from Stipulated Deposition Dates and accompanying
`
`Exhibits 2, 8, 9, and 10 contains 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.
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 744-1 Filed 06/22/21 Page 4 of 4 PageID# 20323
`
`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 Defendant is granted leave to file
`
`REDACTED version of Defendant PMP’s Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Relief from
`
`Stipulated Deposition Dates and accompanying Exhibits 2, 8, 9, and 10.
`
`And to file UNDER SEAL an un-redacted version of Defendant PMP’s Opposition to
`
`Plaintiffs’ Motion for Relief from Stipulated Deposition Dates and accompanying Exhibits 2, 8,
`
`9, and 10.
`
`And FURTHER ORDERED that the un-redacted version of Defendant PMP’s
`
`Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Relief from Stipulated Deposition Dates and accompanying
`
`Exhibits 2, 8, 9, and 10 shall remain SEALED until further order of the Court.
`
`
`
`ENTERED this _____ day of _________________, 2021.
`
`Alexandria, Virginia
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`__________________________________________
`
`