`
`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. 478) and supporting memorandum (Dkt. 481). Defendant
`
`requests to file under seal unredacted versions of its Reply in Support of Motion for Leave to
`
`Amend Counterclaims and to Add Injunctive Relief, as well as Exhibits 1, 11, and 12 to the
`
`Motion. (Dkt. 480.) Plaintiffs RAI Strategic Holding, Inc. and R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company
`
`(“Plaintiffs”) filed a response in support of Defendant’s Motion, pursuant to Local Civil Rule
`
`5(C). See L. Civ. R. 5(C).
`
`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.
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 511 Filed 03/19/21 Page 2 of 3 PageID# 11426
`
`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
`
`motion to seal and public notice on March 11, 2021. (See Dkts. 478, 484.) 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 a
`
`redacted version of its motion, which omits only confidential information. (Dkt. 477.) 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 of
`
`Defendant’s Motion contains the parties’ confidential, proprietary, and competitively sensitive
`
`business information, which is also protected under the parties’ stipulated protective order.
`
`Additionally, the exhibits consist of Plaintiffs’ interrogatory responses, expert reports, and
`
`confidential correspondence between the parties in this action. As a result, public disclosure of
`
`the information could bring competitive harm to the parties in this lawsuit and to third parties.
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 511 Filed 03/19/21 Page 3 of 3 PageID# 11427
`
`Accordingly, it is hereby
`
`ORDERED that Defendant’s motion (Dkt. 478) is GRANTED; and it is further
`
`ORDERED that docket number 480 shall remain permanently under seal.
`
`ENTERED this 19th day of March, 2021.
`
`
`
`/s/
`THERESA CARROLL BUCHANAN
`UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
`
`Alexandria, Virginia
`
`3
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
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.
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.
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
