`
`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 REYNOLDS’S MOTION TO SEAL
`
`This matter is before the Court on the motion filed by RAI Strategic Holdings, Inc. and
`
`R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company
`
`(collectively,
`
`“Reynolds”)
`
`to
`
`file
`
`under
`
`seal
`
`Accompanying Exhibit 1 to Reynolds’s Memorandum in Support of Motions in Limine Nos. 1-3
`
`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 Reynolds’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. Reynolds’s sealing motion was publicly docketed in accordance with Local
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 823-1 Filed 01/21/22 Page 2 of 3 PageID# 21517
`
`Civil Rule 5. PM/Altria have had an opportunity to respond. The “public has had ample
`
`opportunity to object” to Reynolds’s 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.
`
`Reynolds seeks to seal and redact from the public record only information
`
`designated by the parties as confidential. Reynolds has filed publicly a redacted version of
`
`Accompanying Exhibit 1 to Reynolds’s Memorandum in Support of Motions in Limine Nos. 1-3,
`
`in addition to a sealed version, 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 Reynolds. The information that Reynolds seeks to seal includes
`
`confidential, proprietary, and competitively sensitive business information of Reynolds, each of
`
`which could face harm if such information were to be released publicly. Specifically, the sensitive
`
`information that Reynolds moves for leave to file under seal and to redact from the public version
`
`relates to and discusses confidential information of Reynolds relating to confidential business
`
`information and regulatory submissions.
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 823-1 Filed 01/21/22 Page 3 of 3 PageID# 21518
`
`3.
`
`There is support for filing Accompanying Exhibit 1 to Reynolds’s Memorandum in
`
`Support of Motions in Limine Nos. 1-3. Accompanying Exhibit 1 to Reynolds’s Memorandum in
`
`Support of Motions in Limine Nos. 1-3 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 Reynolds is granted leave to file a
`
`REDACTED version of Accompanying Exhibit 1 to Reynolds’s Memorandum in Support of
`
`Motions in Limine Nos. 1-3.
`
`And to file UNDER SEAL an un-redacted version of Accompanying Exhibit 1 to
`
`Reynolds’s Memorandum in Support of Motions in Limine Nos. 1-3.
`
`And FURTHER ORDERED that the un-redacted version of Accompanying Exhibit 1 to
`
`Reynolds’s Memorandum in Support of Motions in Limine Nos. 1-3 shall remain SEALED until
`
`further order of the Court.
`
`ENTERED this _____ day of _________________, 2022.
`
`Alexandria, Virginia
`
`__________________________________________
`
`THERESA CARROLL BUCHANAN
`
`UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
`
`