`
`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. 595) and supporting memorandum (Dkt. 598). Defendants seek
`
`leave to file under seal their Reply in Support of their Motion for Leave to Serve Supplemental
`
`Expert Reports (“Reply”) and accompanying exhibits 22 and 23. (Dkt. 597.) Plaintiffs RAI
`
`Strategic Holdings, Inc. and R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company filed a reply in support of
`
`Defendants’ motion (Dkt. 602) 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 607 Filed 05/14/21 Page 2 of 3 PageID# 13770
`
`Upon consideration of Defendants’ filings, the Court makes the following findings.
`
`First, Defendants have provided public notice of their request to seal and interested
`
`parties have been given a reasonable opportunity to object. Defendants filed their motion and
`
`public notice on May 6, 2021. (See Dkts. 595, 596.) 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 Reply on the public docket. (Dkt. 594.) 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 Reply and Exhibits 22 and 23. The redacted
`
`portions of the Reply and exhibits contain the parties’ confidential business information, which is
`
`also protected by the protective order in this case. Specifically, this confidential information
`
`includes commercially sensitive business, financial, and design information of Defendants,
`
`Plaintiffs, and third parties. 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. 595) is GRANTED. Docket number 597
`
`shall remain permanently under seal.
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 607 Filed 05/14/21 Page 3 of 3 PageID# 13771
`
`ENTERED this 14th day of May, 2021.
`
`/s/
`THERESA CARROLL BUCHANAN
`UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
`
`Alexandria, Virginia
`
`3
`
`