`
`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 Defendants Altria Client Services, LLC, Philip
`
`Morris USA Inc., and Philip Morris Products S.A.’s (“Defendants”) Motion for Leave to File
`
`Documents Under Seal (Dkt. 582) and supporting memorandum (Dkt. 585). Defendants seek
`
`leave to file under seal their Memorandum in Support of their Motion for Leave to Serve
`
`Supplemental Expert Reports (“Memorandum”) and accompanying exhibits 2-21. (Dkt. 584.)
`
`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 seal and interested
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 601 Filed 05/10/21 Page 2 of 3 PageID# 13739
`
`parties have been given a reasonable opportunity to object. Defendants filed their motion and
`
`public notice on April 30, 2021. (See Dkts. 582, 583.) 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 Ashcraft and the Local Civil Rules.
`
`Second, this Court has considered less drastic alternatives. Defendants filed a redacted
`
`version of their Memorandum on the public docket. (Dkt. 580.) 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 Memorandum and supporting exhibits. The
`
`redacted portions of the Memorandum and exhibits 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. 582) is GRANTED. Docket number 584
`
`shall remain permanently under seal.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 601 Filed 05/10/21 Page 3 of 3 PageID# 13740
`
`ENTERED this 10th day of May, 2021.
`
`/s/
`THERESA CARROLL BUCHANAN
`UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
`
`Alexandria, Virginia
`
`3
`
`