`Case 1:20-cv-OO393-LO-TCB Document 699 Filed 06/03/21 Page 1 of 3 Page|D# 17110
`
`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 Defendant Philip Morris Products S.A.’s
`
`(“Defendant”) Motion Seal (Dkt. 664) and supporting memorandum (Dkt. 667). Defendant seeks
`
`leave to file under seal an unredacted version of its Memorandum in Opposition to Reynolds’
`
`Partial Motion to Stay Injunctive Relief Discovery (“Memorandum”) and accompanying exhibits
`
`2—7. (Dkt. 666.) Plaintiffs RAI Strategic Holdings, Inc. and RJ. Reynolds Vapor Company
`
`(“Plaintiffs”) filed a reply in support of Defendants’ motion (Dkt. 681) 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 [5] 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 699 Filed 06/03/21 Page 2 of 3 Page|D# 17111
`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 699 Filed 06/03/21 Page 2 of 3 PageID# 17111
`
`Upon consideration of the parties’ filings, the Court makes the following findings.
`
`First, Defendant has provided public notice of their request to seal and interested parties
`
`have been given a reasonable opportunity to object. Defendant filed its motion and public notice
`
`on May 26, 2021. (See Dkts. 664, 665.) Because over seven days have elapsed since Defendant
`
`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, Defendant has
`
`satisfied this requirement under Ashcroft and the Local Civil Rules.
`
`Second, this Court has considered less drastic alternatives. Defendant filed a redacted
`
`version of its Memorandum on the public docket. (Dkt. 663.) 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 Exhibits 2-7. The redacted
`
`portions contain the parties’ confidential, proprietary, and competitively sensitive business
`
`information, which is also protected by the protective order in this case. Additionally, the
`
`exhibits contain the parties’ technological information, which is designated as confidential.
`
`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 699 Filed 06/03/21 Page 3 of 3 PageID# 17112
`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 699 Filed 06/03/21 Page 3 of 3 PageID# 17112
`
`Accordingly, it is hereby
`
`ORDERED that Defendants' motion (Dkt. 664) is GRANTED. Docket number 666
`
`shall remain permanently under seal.
`
`ENTERED this 3rd day of June, 202].
`
` SA CARROLL B CHANA
`
`UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
`
`Alexandria, Virginia
`
`DJ
`
`