`
`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 Plaintiffs Altria Client
`
`Services LLC (“ACS”), Philip Morris USA Inc. (“PM USA”), and Philip Morris Products S.A.
`
`(“PMP”) (collectively, “PMP/Altria”) to file Exhibits 2 and 3 to PMP/Altria’s Opposition to RJR’s
`
`Motion
`
`to Dismiss Inequitable Conduct Counterclaim and Affirmative Defenses and
`
`Memorandum in Support of their Cross-Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs under seal pursuant
`
`to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2(d) and Local Civil Rule 5(C). Upon consideration of
`
`PMP/Altria’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/Altria’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”
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 764-1 Filed 06/30/21 Page 2 of 3 PageID# 20617
`
`
`
`to PMP/Altria’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 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/Altria seeks to seal from the public record only information designated by the
`
`parties as confidential. The exhibits to be 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/Altria seeks to seal includes confidential, proprietary, and competitively
`
`sensitive business information of PMP/Altria, 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 Exhibits 2 and 3 to PMP/Altria’s Opposition to RJR’s
`
`Motion
`
`to Dismiss Inequitable Conduct Counterclaim and Affirmative Defenses and
`
`Memorandum in Support of their Cross-Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs under seal. The
`
`exhibits to be sealed contain material designated confidential under the stipulated protective order,
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 764-1 Filed 06/30/21 Page 3 of 3 PageID# 20618
`
`
`
`which requires PMP/Altria to file this material under seal. Furthermore, 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. 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/Altria is granted leave to file
`
`UNDER SEAL Exhibits 2 and 3 to PMP/Altria’s Opposition to RJR’s Motion to Dismiss
`
`Inequitable Conduct Counterclaim and Affirmative Defenses and Memorandum in Support of their
`
`Cross-Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs.
`
`
`
`And FURTHER ORDERED that Exhibits 2 and 3 to PMP/Altria’s Opposition to RJR’s
`
`Motion
`
`to Dismiss Inequitable Conduct Counterclaim and Affirmative Defenses and
`
`Memorandum in Support of their Cross-Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs shall remain
`
`SEALED until further order of the Court.
`
`
`
`ENTERED this ____ day of __________, 2021.
`
`Alexandria, Virginia
`
`__________________________________
`
`
`
`3
`
`