`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 742 Filed 06/21/21 Page 1 of 2 PageID# 20309
`
`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 (11.,
`
`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. 707) and supporting
`
`memorandum (Dkt. 710). Plaintiffs request to file under seal unredacted versions of Exhibits 1,
`
`2, 4, and 5 to their Memorandum in Support of Motion for Relief from Stipulation on Deposition
`
`Dates in Light of New Injunction-Related Contentions from Philip Morris Products SA. (Dkt.
`
`709.) 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. 741) 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 742 Filed 06/21/21 Page 2 of 2 PageID# 20310
`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 742 Filed 06/21/21 Page 2 of 2 PageID# 20310
`
`findings supporting its decision to seal the documents and for rejecting the alternatives.” 1d.
`
`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 June 11, 2021. (See Dkts. 707, 708.) 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 Ashch and the Local Civil Rules.
`
`Second, this Court has considered less drastic alternatives. Plaintiffs do not request to
`
`seal or redact their memorandum or even all of the exhibits attached to it. Further, redaction of
`
`the exhibits would not adequately protect the confidential information at issue here.
`
`Finally, the Court finds reason to seal Exhibits 1, 2, 4, and 5. The exhibits consist of the
`
`parties" discovery responses and correspondence between counsel. The documents contain the
`
`parties’ confidential and proprietary information that is also protected under the parties”
`
`stipulated protective order. Public disclosure of this information could bring competitive harm to
`
`Plaintiffs, Defendants, and third parties.
`
`Accordingly, it is hereby
`
`ORDERED that Plaintiffs‘ motion to seal (Dkt. 707) is GRANTED. Docket number 709
`
`shall remain permanently under seal.
`
`ENTERED this 21 st day ofJune, 2021.
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
`
`Alexandria, Virginia
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
