Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 940 Filed 01/31/22 Page 1 of 4 PageID# 26174
`
`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)(cid:3) (collectively, “Reynolds”) (cid:80)(cid:82)(cid:87)(cid:76)(cid:82)(cid:81)(cid:3) to (cid:86)eal (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:23)(cid:19)(cid:15)(cid:3) (cid:27)(cid:23)(cid:22)(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:86)(cid:72)(cid:68)(cid:79)(cid:3) Exhibits 3-6 that accompany its
`
`Memorandum in Support of Motions in Limine No. 7 (cid:11)(cid:39)(cid:78)(cid:87)(cid:17)(cid:3) (cid:27)(cid:23)(cid:21)(cid:12)(cid:3) pursuant to Federal(cid:3) 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
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 940 Filed 01/31/22 Page 2 of 4 PageID# 26175
`
`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. Altria Client Services LLC, Philip Morris USA, Inc., and Philip Morris Products
`
`S.A. (collectively, “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 redacted versions of Exhibits
`
`3-6 that accompany Reynolds’s Memorandum in Support of Motions in Limine No. 7, in addition
`
`to sealed versions, 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. 3:11-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 or PM/Altria. The information that Reynolds seeks to
`
`seal includes confidential, proprietary, and competitively sensitive business information of
`
`Reynolds and PM/Altria, 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
`
`-2-
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 940 Filed 01/31/22 Page 3 of 4 PageID# 26176
`
`and to redact from the public versions relates to and discusses confidential information of Reynolds
`
`and of PM/Altria, such as descriptions of internal business documents and deposition testimony
`
`regarding confidential business information.
`
`3.(cid:3)
`
`There is support for filing Exhibits 3-6 that accompany Reynolds’s Memorandum(cid:3)
`
`in Support of Motions in Limine No. 7 under seal. Exhibits 3-6 that accompany Reynolds’s
`
`Memorandum in Support of Motions in Limine No. 7 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)(cid:87)(cid:17)(cid:3) (cid:27)(cid:23)(cid:19)(cid:12)(cid:3) is GRANTED, and Reynolds is granted leave to
`
`file REDACTED versions of Exhibits 3-6 that accompany Reynolds’s Memorandum in
`
`Support of Motions in Limine No. 7(cid:3)(cid:11)(cid:39)(cid:78)(cid:87)(cid:17)(cid:3)(cid:27)(cid:23)(cid:25)(cid:12)(cid:17)(cid:3)
`
`And to file UNDER SEAL un-redacted versions of Exhibits 3-6 that accompany
`
`Reynolds’s Memorandum in Support of Motions in Limine No. 7. (cid:11)(cid:39)(cid:78)(cid:87)(cid:17)(cid:3)(cid:27)(cid:23)(cid:21)(cid:17)(cid:12)(cid:3)
`
`And (cid:76)(cid:87)(cid:3) (cid:76)(cid:86)(cid:3) FURTHER ORDERED that the un-redacted versions of Exhibits 3-6 that
`
`accompany Reynolds’s Memorandum in Support of Motions in Limine No. 7 shall remain
`
`SEALED until further order of the Court.
`
`-3-
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 940 Filed 01/31/22 Page 4 of 4 PageID# 26177
`
`ENTERED this (cid:22)(cid:20)(cid:86)(cid:87) day of (cid:45)(cid:68)(cid:81)(cid:88)(cid:68)(cid:85)(cid:92), 2022.
`
`(cid:3)(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
`
`-4-
`
`