`
`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 Plaintiffs RAI Strategic Holdings, Inc. and R.J.
`
`Reynolds Vapor Company’s (“Plaintiffs”) Motion to Seal (Dkt. 746) and supporting
`
`memorandum (Dkt. 749). Plaintiffs request to file under seal an unredacted version of their
`
`Reply in Support of their Partial Motion for Summary Judgment (“Reply”) and accompanying
`
`exhibits T and U. (Dkt. 748.) Defendants Altria Client Services LLC, Philip Morris USA Inc.,
`
`and Philip Morris Products S.A. (“Defendants”) filed a response in support of Plaintiffs’ motion
`
`(Dkt. 759) 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 760 Filed 06/30/21 Page 2 of 3 PageID# 20543
`
`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 22, 2021. (See Dkts. 746, 747.) 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. 750.) 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 Reply and Exhibits T and U 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 testimony
`
`containing a third party’s technical information. 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. 746) is GRANTED. Docket number 748
`
`shall remain permanently under seal.
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 760 Filed 06/30/21 Page 3 of 3 PageID# 20544
`
`ENTERED this 30th day of June, 2021.
`
`Alexandria, Virginia
`
`/s/
`
`THERESA CARROLL BUCHANAN
`UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
`
`3
`
`