`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 757 Filed 06/24/21 Page 1 of 2 PageID# 20527
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
`Alexandria Division
`
`)
`)
`
`) )
`
`) )
`
`) Civil Action No. 1:20-cv-393 (LO/TCB)
`)
`)
`
`) )
`
`) )
`
`93213
`
`RAI STRATEGIC HOLDINGS, INC.,
`et 61].,
`
`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. 726) and supporting
`
`memorandum (Dkt. 730). Plaintiffs request to file under seal unredacted versions of Exhibits L,
`
`M, P, Q, S, T, U, and W to their Brief in Opposition to Counterclaim Plaintiffs’ Motion for
`
`Summary Judgment. (Dkt. 728.) 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. 753) 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 [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 757 Filed 06/24/21 Page 2 of 2 Page|D# 20528
`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 757 Filed 06/24/21 Page 2 of 2 PageID# 20528
`
`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. (5%) Dkts. 726, 727.) 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 Ashcrafl and the Local Civil Rules.
`
`Second, this Court has considered less drastic alternatives. Plaintiffs do not seek to seal
`
`any portion of their briefor all of the exhibits thereto. Rather, Plaintiffs seek to seal a select set
`
`of exhibits that contain the parties’ confidential information. Redaction of these exhibits will not
`
`suffice to prevent public disclosure ofcornmercially sensitive business information.
`
`Finally, the Court finds reason to seal Exhibits L, M, P, Q. S, T, U, and W. The exhibits
`
`consist of the parties’ expert reports and interrogatory responses. The documents contain the
`
`parties’ confidential, proprietary, and technological 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. 726) is GRANTED. Docket number 728
`
`shall remain permanently under seal.
`
`ENTERED this 24th day ofJune, 2021.
`
` ' ed States Magistrate Judge
`
`THERESA CARROLL BUCHANAN
`
`UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
`
`Alexandria, Virginia
`
`