`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 682 Filed 06/02/21 Page 1 of 3 PageID# 15282
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
`
`Alexandria Division
`
`)
`)
`
`) )
`
`RAI STRATEGIC HOLDINGS, INC.,
`et a1. ,
`
`) )
`
`.
`) Civil Action No. 1:20-cv-393 (LO/TCB)
`)
`)
`
`) )
`
`) )
`
`ORDER
`
`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. 640) and
`
`supporting memorandum (Dkt. 643). Defendants seek leave to file under seal an unredacted
`
`version of their Reply in Support of Motion to Compel Deposition Dates (“Reply”). (Dkt. 642.)
`
`Plaintiffs RAI Strategic Holdings, Inc. and RI. Reynolds Vapor Company (“Plaintiffs”) filed a
`
`reply in support of Defendants’ motion (Dkt. 659) 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-00393-LO-TCB Document 682 Filed 06/02/21 Page 2 of 3 PagelD# 15283
`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 682 Filed 06/02/21 Page 2 of 3 PageID# 15283
`
`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 21, 2021. (See Dkts. 640, 641.) 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. 644.) This selective protection of information
`
`constitutes the least drastic measure of sealing confidential material. See Adams v. Object
`
`Innovation, Inc, No. 3:1 1cv272-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. The redacted portions contain the
`
`parties’ 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 Defendants” motion (Dkt. 640) is GRANTED. Docket number 642
`
`shall remain permanently under seal.
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 682 Filed 06/02/21 Page 3 of 3 Page|D# 15284
`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 682 Filed 06/02/21 Page 3 of 3 PageID# 15284
`
`ENTERED this 2nd day of June, 2021.
`
`
`/S/
`7
`
`' ‘huresa Carroll Buchanan
`
`
`
`
`ERESA CARROLL BU HANAN °
`UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
`
`Alexandria. Virginia
`
`