`
`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 Defendant Philip Morris Products S.A.’s
`
`(“Defendant”) Motion to Seal (Dkt. 466) and supporting memorandum (Dkt. 468). Defendant
`
`requests to file under seal unredacted versions of its proposed Second Amended Counterclaims
`
`and a redline version of the same. (Dkt. 473.)
`
`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 Defendant’s filings, the Court makes the following findings.
`
`First, Defendant has provided public notice of its request to seal the requested portions
`
`and interested parties have been given a reasonable opportunity to object. Defendant filed its
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 475 Filed 03/09/21 Page 2 of 3 PageID# 10604
`
`motion to seal and public notice on March 1, 2021. (See Dkts. 466, 467.) Because over seven
`
`days have elapsed since Defendant 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, Defendant has satisfied this requirement under Ashcraft and the Local Civil Rules.
`
`Second, this Court has considered less drastic alternatives. Defendant submitted redacted
`
`versions of its filings which omits only targeted confidential information. (Dkts. 464-1, 464-2.)
`
`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 redacted portions
`
`contain Defendant’s 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 Defendant’s motion (Dkt. 466) is GRANTED; and it is further
`
`ORDERED that docket number 473 shall remain permanently under seal.
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 475 Filed 03/09/21 Page 3 of 3 PageID# 10605
`
`ENTERED this 9th day of March, 2021.
`
`/s/
`
`THERESA CARROLL BUCHANAN
`UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
`
`Alexandria, Virginia
`
`