`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 755 Filed 06/24/21 Page 1 of 3 PageID# 20521
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
`
`Alexandria Division
`
`) ) ) ) l
`
`RAI STRATEGIC HOLDINGS, INC,
`
`6! a1. ,
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`
`) Civil Action No. 1:20-cv-393 (LO/TCB)
`
`) ) ) )
`
`) )
`
`ORDER
`
`ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC,
`
`et al. ,
`
`Defendants.
`
`This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiffs RAI Strategic Holdings, Inc. and RJ.
`
`Reynolds Vapor Company’s (“Plaintiffs”) Motion to Seal (Dkt. 714) and supporting
`
`memorandum (Dkt. 717). Plaintiffs request to file under seal unredacted versions of Exhibits A,
`
`B, L, and M to their Brief in Support of Plaintiffs’ Motion to Dismiss Counterclaim and
`
`Affirmative Defenses. (Dkt. 716.) 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. 752) 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 searing the documents, and (3) provide[s] specific reasons and factual
`
`findings supporting its tied-:55; n is seai the documents and for rejecting the alternatives.” 1d.
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-OO393-LO-TCB Document 755 Filed 06/24/21 Page 2 of 3 Page|D# 20522
`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 755 Filed 06/24/21 Page 2 of 3 PageID# 20522
`
`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 16, 2021. (See Dkts. 714, 715.) 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 Ashcraft and the Local Civil Rules.
`
`Second, this Court has considered less drastic alternatives. Plaintiffs filed redacted
`
`versions of the exhibits on the public docket. (Dkt. 720.) 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 Exhibits A, B, L, and M. The exhibits consist of
`
`Plaintiffs” proposed amended answers and amended responses to Defendants’ counterclaims.
`
`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. 714) is GRANTED. Docket number 716
`
`shall remain permanently under seal.
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 755 Filed 06/24/21 Page 3 of 3 Page|D# 20523
`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 755 Filed 06/24/21 Page 3 of 3 PageID# 20523
`
`ENTERED this 24th day oflune. 2021.
`
`Isl
`
`arroll Buchanan
`ed States Magistrate Judge
`
`
` T
`
`
`RESA CARROLL BUCHANAN
`UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
`
`Alexandria, Virginia
`
`b.)
`
`