`Case 1:20-cv-OO393-LO-TCB Document 588 Filed 05/04/21 Page 1 of 3 Page|D# 13301
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
`Alexandria Division
`
`)
`)
`
`) )
`
`) )
`
`) Civil Action No. 1:20-cv-393 (LO/TCB)
`)
`)
`
`) )
`
`) )
`
`9%
`
`RAI STRATEGIC HOLDINGS, INC.,
`et al.,
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`
`ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC,
`et al.,
`
`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 Redact Portions
`
`of the March 19, 2021 Hearing Transcript (Dkt. 575) and supporting memorandum (Dkt. 576).
`
`Defendants seek to redact lines 5:23-6:1, 626-7, 6:8-9, 6:16, 6:25, 7:17-18, 7:24-8z2, 8:4, 8:12,
`
`and 10:1-2 of the March 19, 2021 hearing transcript. (Dkt. 531.)
`
`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 their request to redact the requested
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 588 Filed 05/04/21 Page 2 of 3 PagelD# 13302
`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 588 Filed 05/04/21 Page 2 of 3 PageID# 13302
`
`portions and interested parties have been given a reasonable opportunity to object. Defendants
`
`filed their request to redact the transcript on April 16, 2021 . (See Dkts. 575.) 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 request to seal
`
`only a few lines in an eleven-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 (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 redact the requested lines. These portions contain
`
`Defendants’ confidential business information, which is also protected by the protective order in
`
`this case. Release of this information to the public could lead to competitive harm to the parties
`
`in this lawsuit and to third parties.
`
`Accordingly, it is hereby
`
`ORDERED that Defendant’s motion (Dkt. 575) is GRANTED; and it is further
`
`ORDERED that lines 5:23-621, 6:6-7, 6:8-9, 6:16, 6:25, 7:17-18, 7:24-8:2, 8:4, 8:12, and
`
`10:1—2 of the March 19, 2021 hearing transcript (Dkt. 531) shall be REDACTED.
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 588 Filed 05/04/21 Page 3 of 3 Page|D# 13303
`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 588 Filed 05/04/21 Page 3 of 3 PageID# 13303
`
`ENTERED this 4th day of May, 2021.
`
`
`
`/s/
`‘
`a Carroll Buchanan
`IIThgr
`«med States Magistrate Judge
`THERESA CARROLL BUCHANAN
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
`
`Alexandria, Virginia
`
`