throbber
Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 958-1 Filed 02/11/22 Page 1 of 4 PageID# 26668
`
`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
`
`[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING REYNOLDS’S MOTION TO SEAL DOCUMENTS
`IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO PM/ALTRIA’S DAUBERT MOTION TO
`EXCLUDE THE TESTIMONY OF RYAN SULLIVAN
`
`This matter is before the Court on the motion filed by RAI Strategic Holdings, Inc. and
`
`R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company (collectively, “Reynolds”) to file under seal Reynolds’s Opposition
`
`to PM/Altria’s Daubert Motion to Exclude the Testimony of Ryan Sullivan and accompanying
`
`Exhibits 1-5 and 7 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 288, 302 (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 958-1 Filed 02/11/22 Page 2 of 4 PageID# 26669
`
`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);
`
`United.States 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 Opposition to PM/Altria’s Daubert Motion to Exclude the Testimony of Ryan Sullivan
`
`and accompanying Exhibits 1 and 4, in addition to sealed versions, and have redacted only those
`
`limited portions it seeks to seal. Reynolds requested to have only Exhibits 2-3, 5, and 7 filed
`
`wholly under 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
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 958-1 Filed 02/11/22 Page 3 of 4 PageID# 26670
`
`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 versions relates to and discusses
`
`confidential information of Reynolds and of PM/Altria, such as copies and descriptions of internal
`
`business documents, and deposition testimony regarding confidential business information.
`
`3.
`
`There is support for filing Reynolds’s Opposition to PM/Altria’s Daubert Motion
`
`to Exclude the Testimony of Ryan Sullivan and the identified accompanying exhibits under seal.
`
`Those filings 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); 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 is GRANTED, and Reynolds is granted leave to file
`
`REDACTED versions of Reynolds’s Opposition to PM/Altria’s Daubert Motion to Exclude the
`
`Testimony of Ryan Sullivan and accompanying Exhibits 1 and 4, and to file UNDER SEAL un-
`
`redacted versions of Reynolds’s Opposition to PM/Altria’s Daubert Motion to Exclude the
`
`Testimony of Ryan Sullivan and accompanying Exhibits 1-5 and 7.
`
`And FURTHER ORDERED that the un-redacted versions of Reynolds’s Opposition to
`
`PM/Altria’s Daubert Motion to Exclude the Testimony of Ryan Sullivan and accompanying
`
`Exhibits 1-5 and 7 shall remain SEALED until further order of the Court.
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 958-1 Filed 02/11/22 Page 4 of 4 PageID# 26671
`
`ENTERED this _____ day of _________________, 2022.
`
`Alexandria, Virginia
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`__________________________________________
`
`THERESA CARROLL BUCHANAN
`
`UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket