Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 938 Filed 01/31/22 Page 1 of 3 PageID# 26167
`
`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
`
`ORDER GRANTING REYNOLDS’S MOTION TO SEAL
`
`This matter is before the Court on (cid:51)(cid:79)(cid:68)(cid:76)(cid:81)(cid:87)(cid:76)(cid:73)(cid:73)(cid:86)(cid:3)RAI Strategic Holdings, Inc. and R.J.
`
`Reynolds Vapor Company(cid:10)(cid:86) (collectively, “Reynolds”) (cid:80)(cid:82)(cid:87)(cid:76)(cid:82)(cid:81)(cid:3) (cid:87)(cid:82)(cid:3) (cid:86)(cid:72)(cid:68)(cid:79)(cid:3) (cid:68)(cid:81)(cid:71)(cid:3) (cid:68)(cid:70)(cid:70)(cid:82)(cid:80)(cid:83)(cid:68)(cid:81)(cid:92)(cid:76)(cid:81)(cid:74)(cid:3)
`
`(cid:80)(cid:72)(cid:80)(cid:82)(cid:85)(cid:68)(cid:81)(cid:71)(cid:88)(cid:80)(cid:17)(cid:3) (cid:11)(cid:39)(cid:78)(cid:87)(cid:86)(cid:17)(cid:3) (cid:27)(cid:24)(cid:23)(cid:15)(cid:3) (cid:27)(cid:24)(cid:26)(cid:17)(cid:12)(cid:3) Reynolds(cid:3) (cid:86)(cid:72)(cid:72)(cid:78)(cid:86)(cid:3) (cid:87)(cid:82)(cid:3) (cid:73)(cid:76)(cid:79)(cid:72)(cid:3) (cid:88)(cid:81)(cid:71)(cid:72)(cid:85)(cid:3) (cid:86)(cid:72)(cid:68)(cid:79)(cid:3) (cid:87)(cid:75)(cid:72)(cid:76)(cid:85) Memorandum in
`
`Support of Motion in Limine No. 9 and accompanying Exhibits 1-(cid:24) (cid:11)(cid:39)(cid:78)(cid:87)(cid:17)(cid:3)(cid:27)(cid:24)(cid:25)(cid:12)(cid: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.(cid:3)
`
`The public has received notice of the request to seal and has had reasonable(cid:3)
`
`opportunity to object. Reynolds’s sealing motion was publicly docketed in accordance with Local
`1
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 938 Filed 01/31/22 Page 2 of 3 PageID# 26168
`
`Civil Rule 5. PM/Altria has 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 redacted versions of
`
`Reynolds’s Memorandum in Support of Motion in Limine No. 9 and accompanying Exhibits 1-(cid:24),
`
`in addition to sealed versions, 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,
`
`PM/Altria, and third parties, 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,
`
`PM/Altria and of third parties relating to confidential correspondence between counsel and
`
`confidential business information regarding Reynolds’s VUSE Alto product.
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 938 Filed 01/31/22 Page 3 of 3 PageID# 26169
`
`3.
`
`There is support for filing Reynolds’s Memorandum in Support of Motion in
`
`Limine No. 9 and accompanying Exhibits 1-(cid:24) under seal. Reynolds’s Memorandum in Support of
`
`Motion in Limine No. 9 and accompanying Exhibits 1-(cid:24) contain 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 (cid:11)(cid:39)(cid:78)t.(cid:3) (cid:27)(cid:24)(cid:23)(cid:12)(cid:3) is GRANTED, and Reynolds is granted leave
`
`to file a REDACTED version of Reynolds’s Memorandum in Support of Motion in
`
`Limine No. 9 and accompanying Exhibits 1-(cid:24)(cid:3)(cid:11)(cid:39)(cid:78)(cid:87)(cid:17)(cid:3)(cid:27)(cid:25)(cid:19)(cid:12)(cid:17)(cid:3)
`
`And to file UNDER SEAL un-redacted versions of Reynolds’s Memorandum in Support
`
`of Motion in Limine No. 9 and accompanying Exhibits 1-(cid:24). (cid:11)(cid:39)(cid:78)(cid:87)(cid:17)(cid:3)(cid:27)(cid:24)(cid:25)(cid:17)(cid:12)(cid:3)
`
`And it is FURTHER ORDERED that the un-redacted versions of Reynolds’s
`
`Memorandum in Support of Motion in Limine No. 9 and accompanying Exhibits 1-(cid:24) shall remain
`
`SEALED until further order of the Court.
`
`ENTERED this (cid:22)(cid:20)(cid:86)(cid:87)(cid:3) day of (cid:45)(cid:68)(cid:81)(cid:88)(cid:68)(cid:85)(cid:92), 2022.
`
`(cid:36)(cid:79)(cid:72)(cid:91)(cid:68)(cid:81)(cid:71)(cid:85)(cid:76)(cid:68)(cid:15)(cid:3)(cid:57)(cid:76)(cid:85)(cid:74)(cid:76)(cid:81)(cid:76)(cid:68)(cid:3)
`
`/s/
`__________________________________________
`THERESA CARROLL BUCHANAN
`UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
`
`