`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 683 Filed 06/02/21 Page 1 of 3 PageID# 15285
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
`Alexandria Division
`
`)
`)
`
`) )
`
`) )
`
`) Civil Action No. 1:20-cv-393 (LO/1‘CB)
`)
`)
`
`\
`
`) )
`
`) )
`
`23%
`
`RAI STRATEGIC HOLDINGS, INC.,
`et al.,
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`V.
`
`ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC,
`et a]. ,
`
`Defendants.
`
`This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiffs RAI Strategic Holdings, Inc.'and RJ.
`
`Reynolds Vapor Company’s (“Plaintiffs”) Motion to Seal (Dkt. 645) and supporting ‘
`
`I
`
`memorandum (Dkt. 648). Plaintiffs request to file under seal an un-redacted version of their
`
`Memorandum in Support oftheir Partial Motion to Stay Further Proceedings on lhe Claim of
`
`Philip Morris Products S.A. Seeking Injunctive Relief (“Memorandum”) and accompanying
`
`Exhibits A and B. (Dkt. 647.)
`
`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 the parties’ filings, the Court makes the following findings.
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 683 Filed 06/02/21 Page 2 of 3 PageID# 15286
`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 683 Filed 06/02/21 Page 2 of 3 Page|D# 15286
`
`First, Plaintiffs have provided public notice of their request to seal and interested parties
`
`have been given a reasonable opportunity to object. Plaintiffs filed their motion to seal and
`
`public notice on May 20, 2021. (See Dkts. 635, 636.) Because over seven days have elapsed
`
`since Plaintiffs filed the motion to seal and public notice, 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, Plaintiffs have satisfied this requirement under Ashcrafi and the Local Civil Rules.
`
`Second, this Court has considered less drastic alternatives. Plaintiffs submitted a redacted
`
`version of their Memorandum. (Dkt. 651.) This selective protection of information constitutes
`
`the least drastic measure of sealing confidential material. See Adams v. Object Innovation, Inc.,
`
`No. 3:1 lcv272—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 redacted portions of Plaintiffs’ Memorandum
`
`and accompanying exhibits. The redacted portions contain the parties’ confidential and
`
`proprietary information. Additionally, Exhibit A consists of the ITC’s initial determination
`
`related to certain products in this matter and Exhibit B is Philip Morris S.A.’s objections and
`
`responses to Plaintiffs’ interrogatories. This information is protected under the parties’ stipulated
`
`protective order and includes information related to the parties’ confidential financial and
`
`technical information, communications, and discovery responses. As a result, public disclosure
`
`of the information could bring competitive harm to Plaintiffs, Defendants, and third parties.
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 683 Filed 06/02/21 Page 3 of 3 Page|D# 15287
`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 683 Filed 06/02/21 Page 3 of 3 PageID# 15287
`
`Accordingly, it is hereby
`
`ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ motions to seal (Dkt. 645) is GRANTED. Docket number
`
`647 shall remain pennanently under seal.
`
`ENTERED this 2nd day ofJune, 2021.
`
`
`
`THERESA CARROLL BUCHANAN
`
`UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
`
`Alexandria, Virginia
`
`