`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 758 Filed 06/25/21 Page 1 of 3 PageID# 20529
`
`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. 736) and supporting
`
`memorandum (Dkt. 739). Plaintiffs request to file under seal an unredacted version of their
`
`Reply in Support of Motion for Relief from Stipulation on Deposition Dates in Light of New
`
`Injunction-Related Contentions from Philip Morris Products S.A. (“Reply”) and Exhibits 6, 7,
`
`and 8 thereto. (Dkt. 738.)
`
`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 scaling the documents, and (3) provide[s] specific reasons and factual
`
`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.
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 758 Filed 06/25/21 Page 2 of 3 PagelD# 20530
`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 758 Filed 06/25/21 Page 2 of 3 PageID# 20530
`
`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 17, 2021. (See Dkts. 736, 737.) 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 a redacted
`
`version of their Reply on the public docket. (Dkt. 740.) 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 (ED. Va. Jan. 17, 2012).
`
`Finally, the Court finds reason to seal the Reply and Exhibits 6, 7, and 8 thereto.
`
`Plaintiffs’ Reply contains the parties’ confidential and proprietary business information that is
`
`also protected under the parties’ stipulated protective order. Further, the exhibits consist of the
`
`parties’ discovery responses. 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. 736) is GRANTED. Docket number 738
`
`shall remain permanently under seal.
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 758 Filed 06/25/21 Page 3 of 3 Page|D# 20531
`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 758 Filed 06/25/21 Page 3 of 3 PageID# 20531
`
`ENTERED this 25th day oflune, 2021.
`
`Isl
`tire-3a Carroll Buchanan
`
`Umted States Ma '
`THERESA CARROLL BUCHANAN
`
`UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
`
`Alexandria, Virginia
`
`