`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 784 Filed 07/14/21 Page 1 of 3 PageID# 21071
`
`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. 773) and supporting
`
`memorandum (Dkt. 776). Plaintiffs request to file under seal an unredacted version of their
`
`Reply in Support of Motion to Dismiss Counterclaim and Affirmative Defenses by Plaintiffs
`
`RAI Strategic Holdings, Inc. and R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company and Opposition to Counterclaim
`
`Plaintiffs’ Cross-Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs (“Reply”) and accompanying Exhibits P,
`
`Q, R, S, T, and U. (Dkt. 775.)
`
`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 [3] specific reasons and factual
`
`findings supporting its decision to seal the documents and for rejecting the alternatives.” 1d.
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 784 Filed 07/14/21 Page 2 of 3 Page|D# 21072
`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 784 Filed 07/14/21 Page 2 of 3 PageID# 21072
`
`Upon consideration of Plaintiffs’ filings, the Court makes the following findings.
`
`1 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 July 6, 2021. (See Dkts. 773, 774.) 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 Ashcroft 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. 777.) 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 recommendolion adopted, 2012 WL 135428 (ED. Va. Jan. 17, 2012).
`
`Finally, the Court finds reason to seal the Reply and Exhibits P, Q, R, S, T, and U thereto.
`
`Plaintiffs’ Reply contains the parties’ confidential and proprietary business information that is
`
`also protected under the stipulated protective order in this matter. Further, the exhibits consist of
`
`confidential communications between counsel, deposition testimony, and excerpts from expert
`
`reports. 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. 773) is GRANTED. Docket number 775
`
`shall remain permanently under seal.
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 784 Filed 07/14/21 Page 3 of 3 Page|D# 21073
`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 784 Filed 07/14/21 Page 3 of 3 PageID# 21073
`
`ENTERED this 14th day OfJuly, 2021.
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
`
`Alexandria, Virginia
`
`.1
`3
`
`