Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 913-1 Filed 01/21/22 Page 1 of 3 PageID# 25648
`
`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.
`
`Civil Action No. 1:20-cv-393-LO-TCB
`
`
`
`[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING PMI/ALTRIA’S MOTION TO SEAL
`
`This matter is before the Court on the motion filed by Plaintiffs Altria Client Services,
`
`
`
`LLC, Philip Morris USA Inc., and Philip Morris Products S.A. (collectively, “PMI/Altria”) to file
`
`their Brief in Support of PMI/Altria’s Daubert Motion To Exclude The Opinions Of Reynolds’
`
`Damages Expert, Dr. Ryan Sullivan (“Brief”) and Exhibits 1-13 thereto under seal pursuant to
`
`Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2(d) and Local Civil Rule 5(C). Upon consideration of
`
`PMI/Altria’s motion to seal and its memorandum in support thereof (“Sealing Motion”), the Court
`
`hereby FINDS as follows:
`
`
`
`1.
`
`The public has received notice of the request to seal and has had reasonable
`
`opportunity to object. PMI/Altria’s Sealing Motion was publicly docketed in accordance with
`
`Local Civil Rule 5. Defendants RAI Strategic Holdings, Inc. and R.J. Reynolds Vapor Co.
`
`(collectively, “RJR”) have had an opportunity to respond. The “public has had ample opportunity
`
`to object” to PMI/Altria’s Sealing Motion and, since “the Court has received no objections,” the
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 913-1 Filed 01/21/22 Page 2 of 3 PageID# 25649
`
`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. 09-cv-123, 2009 WL 1248114, at *9 (E.D. Va.
`
`Apr. 30, 2009); see also U.S. ex rel. Carter v. Halliburton Co., No. 10-cv-864, 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.
`
`PMI/Altria seek to seal and to redact from the public record only information
`
`designated by the parties as confidential. PMI/Altria will file publicly a redacted version of their
`
`Brief, in addition to a sealed version, and will redact 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. 11-cv-272, 2011 WL
`
`7042224, at *4 (E.D. Va. Dec. 5, 2011) (finding that PMI/Altria’s “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 the parties’ confidential information. See 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
`
`PMI/Altria seek to seal includes confidential, proprietary, and competitively sensitive business
`
`information of the parties 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 PMI/Altria’s Brief, with a publicly filed
`
`version containing strictly limited redactions. The Brief contains material designated confidential
`
`under the stipulated protective order. Accordingly, PMI/Altria are required to file this material
`
`under seal pursuant to the stipulated protective order. Placing these materials under seal is proper
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 913-1 Filed 01/21/22 Page 3 of 3 PageID# 25650
`
`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. 08-cv-371, 2008 WL 4924711, at *1 (E.D.
`
`Va. Nov. 13, 2008); see also 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 Sealing Motion is GRANTED, and PMI/Altria are granted leave to
`
`file a REDACTED version of their Brief in Support of PMI/Altria’s Daubert Motion To Exclude
`
`The Opinions Of Reynolds’ Damages Expert, Dr. Ryan Sullivan.
`
`And to file UNDER SEAL an unredacted version of the Brief in Support of PMI/Altria’s
`
`Daubert Motion To Exclude The Opinions Of Reynolds’ Damages Expert, Dr. Ryan Sullivan, and
`
`Exhibits 1-13 thereto.
`
`And FURTHER ORDERED that the unredacted version of the Brief in Support of
`
`PMI/Altria’s Daubert Motion To Exclude The Opinions of Reynolds’ Damages Expert, Dr. Ryan
`
`Sullivan, and Exhibits 1-13 thereto, shall remain SEALED until further order of the Court.
`
`
`
`ENTERED this ____ day of __________, 2022.
`
`Alexandria, Virginia
`
`__________________________________
`
`3
`
`