Case 1:20-cv-OO393-LO-TCB Document 700 Filed 06/04/21 Page 1 of 3 Page|D# 17113
`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 700 Filed 06/04/21 Page 1 of 3 PageID# 17113
`
`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 Plaintiffs RAI Strategic Holdings, Inc. and R.J.
`
`Reynolds Vapor Company’s (“Plaintiffs”) Motion to Seal (Dkt. 673) and supporting
`
`memorandum (Dkt. 676). Plaintiffs request to file under seal an un-redacted version of their
`
`Reply in Support of their Partial Motion to Stay Further Proceedings on the Claim of Philip
`
`Morris Products S.A. Seeking Injunctive Relief (“Reply”) and accompanying exhibits C and D.
`
`(Dkt. 675.) Pursuant to Local Civil Rule 5(C), Defendants Altria Client Services LLC, Philip
`
`Morris USA Inc., and Philip Morris Products S.A. (“Defendants”) replied (Dkt. 698) in support
`
`of Plaintiffs’ Motion. 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
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 700 Filed 06/04/21 Page 2 of 3 PagelD# 17114
`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 700 Filed 06/04/21 Page 2 of 3 PageID# 17114
`
`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.
`
`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 27, 2021. (See Dkts. 673, 674.) 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 Ashcroft and the Local Civil Rules.
`
`Second, this Court has considered less drastic alternatives. Plaintiffs submitted a redacted
`
`version of their Reply. (Dkt. 677.) 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 redacted portions of Plaintiffs’ Reply and
`
`accompanying exhibits C and D. The redacted portions contain the parties’ confidential and
`
`proprietary information. Additionally, Exhibit C consists of confidential correspondence between
`
`counsel and Exhibit D is a deposition transcript of one of Defendants’ corporate witnesses. 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 700 Filed 06/04/21 Page 3 of 3 Page|D# 17115
`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 700 Filed 06/04/21 Page 3 of 3 PageID# 17115
`
`Accordingly, it is hereby
`
`ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ motions to seal (Dkt. 673) is GRANTED. Docket number
`
`675 shall remain permanently under seal.
`
`ENTERED this 4th day of June, 2021.
`
`
`Isl
`Carroll Buchan
`
`
`an
`rted States Ma is
`
`
`THERESA CARROLL BUCHANAN
`
`UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
`
`Alexandria, Virginia
`
`