`
`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 Plaintiffs RAI Strategic Holdings, Inc. and R.J.
`
`Reynolds Vapor Company's
`
`(collectively,
`
`“Reynolds”) motion
`
`to
`
`seal
`
`and
`
`accompanying memorandum.
`
`(Dkts.
`
`847,
`
`850.) Reynolds
`
`seeks
`
`to
`
`seal
`
`its
`
`Memorandum in Support of Motion in Limine No. 8 and accompanying Exhibits 1-6 (Dkt.849)
`
`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) give 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
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 939 Filed 01/31/22 Page 2 of 4 PageID# 26171
`
`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
`
`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 288, has been satisfied. GTSI Corp. v. Wildflower Int’l,
`
`Inc., No. 1:09CV123 (JCC), 2009 WL 1248114, at *9 (E.D. Va. Apr. 30, 2009); United States ex
`
`rel. Carter v. Halliburton Co., No. 1:10cv864 (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. 8 and accompanying Exhibits 1-6,
`
`in addition to a sealed version, and have 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. 3:11cv272-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 or third parties. The information that Reynolds seeks
`
`to seal includes confidential, proprietary, and competitively sensitive business information of
`
`Reynolds 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
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 939 Filed 01/31/22 Page 3 of 4 PageID# 26172
`
`and to redact from the public version relates to proprietary and commercially sensitive materials
`
`from Reynolds and third parties, such as details regarding Reynolds’s manufacturers and suppliers.
`
`3.
`
`There is support for filing Reynolds’s Memorandum in Support of Motion in
`
`Limine No. 8 and accompanying Exhibits 1-6 under seal. Reynolds’s Memorandum in Support of
`
`Motion in Limine No. 8 and accompanying Exhibits 1-6 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. 1:08cv371 (JCC), 2008 WL 4924711, at *1 (E.D. Va. Nov. 13, 2008);
`
`United States 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 (Dkt. 847) is GRANTED, and Reynolds is granted leave to
`
`file a REDACTED version of Reynolds’s Memorandum in Support of Motion in Limine No.
`
`8 and accompanying Exhibits 1-6 (Dkt. 853).
`
`And to file UNDER SEAL an un-redacted version of Reynolds’s Memorandum in Support
`
`of Motion in Limine No. 8 and accompanying Exhibits 1-6. (Dkt 849.)
`
`And
`
`it
`
`is FURTHER ORDERED
`
`that the un-redacted version of Reynolds’s
`
`Memorandum in Support of Motion in Limine No. 8 and accompanying Exhibits 1-6 shall remain
`
`SEALED until further order of the Court.
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 939 Filed 01/31/22 Page 4 of 4 PageID# 26173
`
`ENTERED this 31st day of January, 2022.
`
`Alexandria, Virginia
`
`/s/
`__________________________________________
`THERESA CARROLL BUCHANAN
`UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
`
`