`
`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 Plaintiffs RAI Strategic Holdings, Inc. and R.J.
`
`Reynolds Vapor Company’s (“Plaintiffs”) Motion to Seal (Dkt. 503) and supporting
`
`memorandum (Dkt. 506). Plaintiffs request to file under seal an un-redacted version of their
`
`Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Materials in Support of their Second Motion to Compel
`
`Responsive Documents Related to Defendants’ ‘374 Patent Infringement Counterclaim
`
`(“Motion”) and accompanying exhibit A. (Dkt. 505.) Defendants Altria Client Services LLC,
`
`Philip Morris USA Inc., and Philip Morris Products S.A. (“Defendants”) filed a reply in support
`
`of Plaintiffs’ motion (Dkt. 526) 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
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 533 Filed 03/29/21 Page 2 of 3 PageID# 11615
`
`findings supporting its decision to seal the documents and for rejecting the alternatives.” Id.
`
`Upon consideration of Plaintiffs’ filings, the Court makes the following findings.
`
`First, Plaintiffs have provided public notice of its request to seal and interested parties
`
`have been given a reasonable opportunity to object. Plaintiffs filed their motion to seal and
`
`public notice on March 19, 2021. (See Dkts. 503, 504.) Because over seven days have elapsed
`
`since Plaintiffs filed the motion to seal and public notice, 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, Plaintiffs have satisfied this requirement under Ashcraft and the Local Civil Rules.
`
`Second, this Court has considered less drastic alternatives. Plaintiffs submitted a redacted
`
`version of their Motion. (Dkt. 507.) 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 seal the redacted portions of the Motion and Exhibit A.
`
`The redacted portions contain confidential, proprietary, and competitively sensitive business
`
`information of Defendants and third parties. This information 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 others.
`
`Accordingly, it is hereby
`
`ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ motion to seal (Dkt. 503) is GRANTED. Docket number 505
`
`shall remain permanently under seal.
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 533 Filed 03/29/21 Page 3 of 3 PageID# 11616
`
`ENTERED this 29th day of March, 2021.
`
`THERESA CARROLL BUCHANAN
`UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
`
`/s/
`
`Alexandria, Virginia
`
`