Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 806-1 Filed 08/11/21 Page 1 of 4 PageID# 21263
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
`ALEXANDRIA DIVISION
`
`Case No. 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB
`
`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.
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`
`[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 an un-redacted version
`
`of Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Answer to Defendants Altria Client Services LLC and Philip
`
`Morris USA, Inc.’s Amended Counterclaims under seal 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 806-1 Filed 08/11/21 Page 2 of 4 PageID# 21264
`
`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 a redacted version of
`
`Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Answer to Defendants Altria Client Services LLC and Philip Morris
`
`USA, Inc.’s Amended Counterclaims, in addition to a sealed version, 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-DWS, 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 and
`
`Defendants. Id. at *4. 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 released publicly.
`
`Specifically, the sensitive information that Plaintiffs move for leave to file under seal, and to
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 806-1 Filed 08/11/21 Page 3 of 4 PageID# 21265
`
`redact from a publicly filed version, includes proprietary and commercially sensitive materials of
`
`Plaintiffs, such as materials falling under the ITC protective order, internal scientific studies and
`
`analyses, and deposition testimony related to development information.
`
`3.
`
`There is support for filing portions of Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Answer to
`
`Defendants Altria Client Services LLC and Philip Morris USA, Inc.’s Amended Counterclaims
`
`under seal, with a publicly filed version containing strictly limited redactions. Plaintiffs’ Second
`
`Amended Answer to Defendants Altria Client Services LLC and Philip Morris USA, Inc.’s
`
`Amended Counterclaims contains 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 a
`
`REDACTED version of Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Answer to Defendants Altria Client
`
`Services LLC and Philip Morris USA, Inc.’s Amended Counterclaims.
`
`And to file UNDER SEAL an un-redacted version of Plaintiffs’ Second Amended
`
`Answer to Defendants Altria Client Services LLC and Philip Morris USA, Inc.’s Amended
`
`Counterclaims.
`
`And FURTHER ORDERED that the un-redacted version of Plaintiffs’ Second
`
`Amended Answer to Defendants Altria Client Services LLC and Philip Morris USA, Inc.’s
`
`Amended Counterclaims shall remain SEALED until further order of the Court.
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 806-1 Filed 08/11/21 Page 4 of 4 PageID# 21266
`
`
`
`ENTERED this _____ day of _________________, 2020.
`
`Alexandria, Virginia
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`__________________________________________
`
`