`
`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 Defendants Altria Client Services, LLC, Philip
`
`Morris USA Inc., and Philip Morris Products S.A.’s (“Defendants”) Motion Seal (Dkt. 764) and
`
`supporting memorandum (Dkt. 767). Defendants seek leave to file under seal Exhibits 2 and 3 to
`
`their Opposition to RJR’s Motion to Dismiss Inequitable Conduct Counterclaim and Affirmative
`
`Defenses and Memorandum in Support of their Cross-Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs.
`
`(Dkt. 766.) Plaintiffs RAI Strategic Holdings, Inc. and R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company
`
`(“Plaintiffs”) filed a reply in support of Defendants’ motion (Dkt. 778) 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
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 780 Filed 07/08/21 Page 2 of 3 PageID# 20992
`
`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.
`
`First, Defendants have provided public notice of their request to seal and interested
`
`parties have been given a reasonable opportunity to object. Defendants filed their motion and
`
`public notice on June 30, 2021. (See Dkts. 764, 765.) Because over seven days have elapsed
`
`since Defendants filed the motion 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,
`
`Defendants have satisfied this requirement under Ashcraft and the Local Civil Rules.
`
`Second, this Court has considered less drastic alternatives. The exhibits consist of
`
`Plaintiffs’ interrogatory responses, and redaction would not suffice to shield the confidential
`
`information at issue. 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 exhibits. Interrogatory responses are typically
`
`not filed on the public docket, and the confidential information within the responses is protected
`
`by the parties’ stipulated protective order. These documents contain Plaintiffs’ confidential,
`
`proprietary, and commercially sensitive business, financial, and design information. Release of
`
`this information could cause competitive harm to the parties in this action and to third parties.
`
`Accordingly, it is hereby
`
`ORDERED that Defendants’ motion (Dkt. 764) is GRANTED. Docket number 766
`
`shall remain permanently under seal.
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 780 Filed 07/08/21 Page 3 of 3 PageID# 20993
`
`ENTERED this 8th day of July, 2021.
`
`THERESA CARROLL BUCHANAN
`UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
`
`/s/
`
`Alexandria, Virginia
`
`3
`
`
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
