`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
`Alexandria Division
`
`RAI STRATEGIC HOLDINGS, INC.,
`et al.,
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`) Civil Action No. 1:20-cv-393 (LO/TCB)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`
`Defendants.
`______________________________________ )
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`
`ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC,
`et al.,
`
`ORDER
`
`This matter comes before the Court on Defendants Altria Client Services, LLC, Philip
`
`Morris USA Inc., and Philip Morris Products S.A.’s (“Defendants”) Motion to Redact Portions
`
`of the November 18, 2020 Hearing Transcript (Dkt. 454) and supporting memorandum (Dkt.
`
`455). Defendants request that the Court redact lines 11:4 and 11:6-8 of the parties’ November 18,
`
`2020 Markman hearing transcript (Dkt. 443).
`
`District courts have authority to seal court documents “if the public’s right of access is
`
`outweighed by competing interests.” Ashcraft v. Conoco, Inc., 218 F.3d 288, 302 (4th Cir. 2000).
`
`Procedurally, a district court may seal court filings if it (1) “provide[s] public notice of the
`
`request to seal and allow[s] interested parties a reasonable opportunity to object, (2) consider[s]
`
`less drastic alternatives to sealing the documents, and (3) provide[s] specific reasons and factual
`
`findings supporting its decision to seal the documents and for rejecting the alternatives.” Id.
`
`Upon consideration of Defendants’ filings, the Court makes the following findings.
`
`First, Defendants have provided public notice of its request to seal the requested portions
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 462 Filed 02/22/21 Page 2 of 3 PageID# 10196
`
`and interested parties have been given a reasonable opportunity to object. Defendants filed their
`
`motion to redact on the public docket on February 12, 2021. (See Dkt. 454.) Because over seven
`
`days have elapsed since Defendants filed the motion and no interested party has objected, the
`
`Court may treat this motion as uncontested under Local Civil Rule 5(C). See L. Civ. R. 5(C).
`
`Accordingly, Defendants have satisfied this requirement under Ashcraft and the Local Civil
`
`Rules.
`
`Second, this Court has considered less drastic. Defendants seek to redact only a few lines
`
`from the 126-page transcript. This selective protection of information constitutes the least drastic
`
`measure of sealing confidential material. See 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 [the document],
`
`constitutes the least drastic method of shielding the information at issue.”), report and
`
`recommendation adopted, 2012 WL 135428 (E.D. Va. Jan. 17, 2012).
`
`Finally, the Court finds reason to redact the requested portions. The lines contain
`
`confidential, proprietary, and competitively sensitive business information, which is also
`
`protected under the parties’ stipulated protective order. As a result, public disclosure of the
`
`information could bring competitive harm to the parties in this lawsuit and to third parties.
`
`Accordingly, it is hereby
`
`ORDERED that Defendants’ motion (Dkt. 454) is GRANTED; and it is further
`
`ORDERED that lines 11:4, 11:6, 11:7, and 11:8 of the November 18, 2020 hearing (Dkt.
`
`443) shall be REDACTED.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 462 Filed 02/22/21 Page 3 of 3 PageID# 10197
`
`ENTERED this 22nd day of February, 2021.
`
`/s/
`THERESA CARROLL BUCHANAN
`UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
`
`Alexandria, Virginia
`
`