Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 943 Filed 01/31/22 Page 1 of 5 PageID# 26189
`
`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
`
`(cid:3)
`
`(cid:50)RDER GRANTING PM/ALTRIA’S MOTION TO SEAL
`
`This matter is before the Court on the motion (Dkt. 906) filed by Philip Morris Products
`
`S.A., Phillip Morris USA Inc., and Altria Client Services, LLC (collectively, “PM/Altria”) to(cid:3)
`
`seal un-redacted versions of PM/Altria’s Brief in Support of PM/Altria’s Motion to Exclude
`
`Opinions of Reynolds’s Experts Based on Rejected Claim Constructions and Exhibits 1-2 and 4-6
`
`pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2(d) and Local Civil Rule 5(C). (cid:11)(cid:39)(cid:78)(cid:87)(cid:17)(cid:3)(cid:28)(cid:19)(cid:27)(cid:17)(cid:12)(cid:3)
`
`Because the documents that PM/Altria seeks to seal contain confidential, proprietary, and
`
`competitively sensitive business, financial, and design information of the RAI Strategic Holdings,
`
`Inc., and R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company (collectively, “Reynolds”), Reynolds filed a
`
`memorandum in support of PM/Altria’s sealing request.
`
`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
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 943 Filed 01/31/22 Page 2 of 5 PageID# 26190
`
`supporting its decision to seal the documents and for rejecting the alternatives.” Ashcraft v.
`
`Conoco, Inc., 218 F.3d 288, 302 (4th Cir. 2000) (internal citations omitted). Upon consideration
`
`of PM/Altria’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. PM/Altria’s sealing motion was publicly docketed in accordance with
`
`Local Civil Rule 5. Reynolds has filed a memorandum in support of sealing. The “public has had
`
`ample opportunity to object” to PM/Altria’s motion and, since “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. 1:09CV123(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.
`
`PM/Altria seeks to seal and redact from the public record only information
`
`designated by the parties as confidential. PM/Altria has filed publicly a redacted version of its
`
`Brief in Support of PM/Altria’s Motion to Exclude Opinions of Reynolds’s Experts Based on
`
`Rejected Claim Constructions and Exhibits 1-2 and 4-6 (Dkt. 904), in addition to a sealed
`
`version (Dkt. 908), 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. 3:11CV272-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
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 943 Filed 01/31/22 Page 3 of 5 PageID# 26191
`
`information that is confidential to PM/Altria and Reynolds. Id. (“[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 PM/Altria seeks to seal includes confidential, proprietary, and competitively sensitive
`
`business information of PM/Altria, Reynolds, and/or third parties, each of which could face harm
`
`if such information were to be released publicly. Specifically, the sensitive information that
`
`PM/Altria move for leave to file under seal, and to redact from a publicly filed version, includes
`
`proprietary and commercially sensitive business, financial, and design information of PM/Altria,
`
`Reynolds, and/or third parties:
`
`(cid:120) PM/Altria’s Brief in Support of PM/Altria’s Motion to Exclude Opinions of
`
`Reynolds’s Experts Based on Rejected Claim Constructions;
`
`(cid:120) Exhibit 1, which are excerpts from the confidential rebuttal expert report of
`
`Jeffrey Suhling;
`
`(cid:120) Exhibit 2, which are excerpts from the confidential rebuttal expert report of Kelly
`
`Kodama regarding U.S. Patent No. 10,555,556
`
`(cid:120) Exhibit 4, which are excerpts from the confidential rebuttal expert report of Travis
`
`Blalock;
`
`(cid:120) Exhibit 5, which are excerpts from the confidential rebuttal expert report of Kelly
`
`Kodama regarding U.S. Patent No. 10,104,911; and
`
`(cid:120) Exhibit 6, which are excerpts from the confidential deposition transcript of Kelly
`
`Kodama.
`
`3.
`
`There is support for filing portions of PM/Altria’s Brief in Support of PM/Altria’s
`
`Motion to Exclude Opinions of Reynolds’s Experts Based on Rejected Claim Constructions and
`
`3
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 943 Filed 01/31/22 Page 4 of 5 PageID# 26192
`
`Exhibits 1-2 and 4-6 under seal, with publicly filed versions containing strictly limited
`
`redactions. PM/Altria’s Brief in Support of PM/Altria’s Motion to Exclude Opinions of
`
`Reynolds’s Experts Based on Rejected Claim Constructions and Exhibits 1-2 and 4-6 contain
`
`materials that fall 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-371-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
`
`(cid:3)
`
`ORDERED that the motion(cid:3)(cid:11)(cid:39)(cid:78)(cid:87)(cid:17)(cid:3)(cid:28)(cid:19)(cid:25)(cid:12) is GRANTED, and PM/Altria is granted leave to
`
`file REDACTED versions of PM/Altria’s Brief in Support of PM/Altria’s Motion to Exclude
`
`Opinions of Reynolds’s Experts Based on Rejected Claim Constructions and Exhibits 1-2 and
`
`4-6(cid:3)(cid:11)(cid:39)(cid:78)(cid:87)(cid:17)(cid:3)(cid:28)(cid:20)(cid:20)(cid:12).
`
`And to file UNDER SEAL un-redacted versions of PM/Altria’s Brief in Support of
`
`PM/Altria’s Motion to Exclude Opinions of Reynolds’s Experts Based on Rejected Claim
`
`Constructions and Exhibits 1-2 and 4-6. (cid:11)(cid:39)(cid:78)(cid:87)(cid:17)(cid:3)(cid:28)(cid:19)(cid:27)(cid:17)(cid:12)(cid:3)
`
`And it is FURTHER ORDERED that un-redacted versions of PM/Altria’s Brief in
`
`Support of PM/Altria’s Motion to Exclude Opinions of Reynolds’s Experts Based on Rejected
`
`Claim Constructions and Exhibits 1-2 and 4-6 shall remain SEALED until further order of the
`
`Court.
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 943 Filed 01/31/22 Page 5 of 5 PageID# 26193
`
`(cid:40)(cid:49)(cid:55)(cid:40)(cid:53)(cid:40)(cid:39)(cid:3)(cid:87)(cid:75)(cid:76)(cid:86)(cid:3)(cid:22)(cid:20)(cid:86)(cid:87)(cid:3)(cid:71)(cid:68)(cid:92)(cid:3)(cid:82)(cid:73)(cid:3)(cid:45)(cid:68)(cid:81)(cid:88)(cid:68)(cid:85)(cid:92)(cid:15)(cid:3)(cid:21)(cid:19)(cid:21)(cid:21)(cid:17)(cid:3)
`
`/s/
`__________________________________________
`THERESA CARROLL BUCHANAN
`UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
`
`(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)
`
`5
`
`