`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 661 Filed 05/24/21 Page 1 of 3 PageID# 14946
`
`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 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 Seal (Dkt. 618) and
`
`supporting memorandum (Dkt. 621). Defendants seek leave to file under seal an unredacted
`
`version of their Memorandum in Support of their Motion to Compel Deposition Dates
`
`(“Memorandum”) and accompanying Exhibits 3, 4, and 6—1 1. (Dkt. 620.) Plaintiffs RAI Strategic
`
`Holdings, Inc. and RJ. Reynolds Vapor Company (“Plaintiffs”) filed a reply in support of
`
`Defendants’ motion (Dkt. 633) 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.
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-OO393-LO-TCB Document 661 Filed 05/24/21 Page 2 of 3 Page|D# 14947
`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 661 Filed 05/24/21 Page 2 of 3 PageID# 14947
`
`Upon consideration of the parties’ 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 14, 2021. (See Dkts. 618, 619.) 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 and accompanying exhibits on the public docket. (Dkt. 616.) 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 Memorandum and accompanying Exhibits 3, 4,
`
`and 6-11. The redacted portions of the Memorandum and exhibits contain the parties’
`
`confidential business information, which is also protected by the protective order in this case.
`
`Specifically, this confidential information includes communications between the parties and their
`
`respective deposition notices. Release of this information to the public could lead to competitive
`
`harm to the parties in this lawsuit and to third parties.
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 661 Filed 05/24/21 Page 3 of 3 Page|D# 14948
`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 661 Filed 05/24/21 Page 3 of 3 PageID# 14948
`
`Accordingly. it is hereby
`
`ORDERED that Defendant’s motion (Dkt. 618) is GRANTED. Docket number 620
`
`shall remain permanently under seal.
`
`ENTERED this 24th day of May, 2021.
`
` ls!
`eresa Carroll Buchanan
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
`
`ERESA CARROLL BU
`
`AN
`
`Alexandria, Virginia
`
`