`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
`Alexandria Division
`
`RAI STRATEGIC HOLDINGS, INC.,
`et al.,
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`) Civil Action No. 1:20-cv-393 (LO/TCB)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`
`Defendants.
`______________________________________ )
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`
`ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC,
`et al.,
`
`ORDER
`
`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. 691) and
`
`supporting memorandum (Dkt. 693). Defendants seek leave to file under seal an unredacted
`
`version of their Memorandum in Support of their Motion for Summary Judgment
`
`(“Memorandum”) and accompanying exhibits 5-11, 18, and 21. (Dkt. 694.) Plaintiffs RAI
`
`Strategic Holdings, Inc. and R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company (“Plaintiffs”) filed a reply in support
`
`of Defendants’ motion (Dkt. 703) 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.
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 706 Filed 06/10/21 Page 2 of 3 PageID# 17147
`
`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 June 2, 2021. (See Dkts. 691, 692.) 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 on the public docket. (Dkt. 696.) 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 (E.D. 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 5-11, 18, and 21.
`
`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’ interrogatory responses, expert testimony, and other
`
`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.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 706 Filed 06/10/21 Page 3 of 3 PageID# 17148
`
`Accordingly, it is hereby
`
`ORDERED that Defendants’ motion (Dkt. 691) is GRANTED. Docket number 694
`
`shall remain permanently under seal.
`
`ENTERED this 10th day of June, 2021.
`
`/s/
`THERESA CARROLL BUCHANAN
`UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
`
`Alexandria, Virginia
`
`3
`
`