Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 574 Filed 04/23/21 Page 1 of 3 PagelD# 12595
`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 574 Filed 04/23/21 Page 1 of 3 PageID# 12595
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
`
`Alexandria Division
`
`)
`)
`
`) )
`
`) )
`
`) Civil Action No. 1:20-cv-393 (LO/TCB)
`)
`)
`
`) )
`
`) )
`
`ORDER
`
`RAI STRATEGIC HOLDINGS, INC.,
`et al.,
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`
`ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC,
`et a1. ,
`
`Defendants.
`
`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 Seal (Dkt. 561)
`
`and supporting memorandum (Dkt. 564). Defendants request to file under seal an unredacted
`
`version of their Reply in Support of their Motion to Compel Reynolds’ 30(b)(6) Deposition on
`
`Topics 28, 54, and 78 (“Reply”) and accompanying exhibits 25, 26, 29, 30, and 32. (Dkt. 563.)
`
`Plaintiffs RAI Strategic Holding, Inc. and RI. Reynolds Vapor Company (“Plaintiffs”) filed a
`
`response in support of Defendant’s Motion (Dkt. 570), 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 [3] 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 574 Filed 04/23/21 Page 2 of 3 Page|D# 12596
`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 574 Filed 04/23/21 Page 2 of 3 PageID# 12596
`
`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
`
`and interested parties have been given a reasonable opportunity to object. Defendants filed their
`
`motion to seal and public .notice on April 15, 2021. (See Dkts. 561, 562.) 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 Ashcroft and the Local Civil
`
`Rules.
`
`Second, this Court has considered less drastic alternatives. Defendants submitted a
`
`redacted version of their Reply, which omits only confidential information. (Dkt. 560.) 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 (ED. 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 Reply and accompanying exhibits 25, 26, 29,
`
`30, and 32. The redacted portions of Defendant’s Reply contain the parties’ confidential,
`
`proprietary, and competitively sensitive business information, which is also protected under the
`
`parties’ stipulated protective order. Additionally, the exhibits consist ofthe parties’ interrogatory
`
`responses and confidential communications. As a result of the commercially sensitive content
`
`contained in these filings, public disclosure of this information could bring competitive harm to
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 574 Filed 04/23/21 Page 3 of 3 Page|D# 12597
`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 574 Filed 04/23/21 Page 3 of 3 PageID# 12597
`
`the parties in this lawsuit and to third parties.
`
`Accordingly, it is hereby
`
`ORDERED that Defendant’s motion (Dkt. 561) is GRANTED; and it is filrther
`
`ORDERED that docket number 563 shall remain permanently under seal.
`
`ENTERED this 23rd day of April, 2021.
`
`
`
`a Carroll Buchanan
`d States Ma istrate Judge
`
`
`RESA CARROLL BUCHANAN
`
`UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
`
`Alexandria Virginia
`
`Lu
`
`