Case 1:20-cv-OO393-LO-TCB Document 797 Filed 07/23/21 Page 1 of 3 Page|D# 21167
`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 797 Filed 07/23/21 Page 1 of 3 PageID# 21167
`
`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 Defendants Altria Client Services, LLC, Philip
`
`Morris USA Inc., and Philip Morris Products S.A.’s (“Defendants”) Motion Seal (Dkt. 790) and
`
`supporting memorandum (Dkt. 793). Defendants seek leave to file under seal their Memorandum
`
`in Support of their Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Materials in Support of their
`
`Opposition to Reynolds’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (“Memorandum”) and
`
`accompanying Exhibits A, B, and C. (Dkt. 792.) Plaintiffs RAI Strategic Holdings, Inc. and RJ.
`
`Reynolds Vapor Company (“Plaintiffs”) filed a reply in support of Defendants’ motion (Dkt.
`
`796) 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
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 797 Filed 07/23/21 Page 2 of 3 PagelD# 21168
`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 797 Filed 07/23/21 Page 2 of 3 PageID# 21168
`
`findings supporting its decision to seal the documents and for rejecting the alternatives.” Id.
`
`Upon consideration of the parties’ filings, the Court makes thevfollowing 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 July 15, 2021. (See Dkts. 790, 791 .) 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, and Defendants submitted a
`
`redacted version of their Memorandum on the public docket. (Dkt. 789.) See Adams v. Object
`
`Innovation, Inc., No. 3:1 lcv272-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 (E.D. Va. Jan. 17, 2012).
`
`Finally, the Court finds reason to seal the unredacted Memorandum and Exhibits A, B,
`
`and C. The exhibits consist of expert testimony excerpts, interrogatory responses, and
`
`confidential correspondence between counsel. Interrogatory responses are typically not filed on
`
`the public docket, and the confidential information within these exhibits 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.
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 797 Filed 07/23/21 Page 3 of 3 Page|D# 21169
`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 797 Filed 07/23/21 Page 3 of 3 PageID# 21169
`
`Accordingly, it is hereby
`
`ORDERED that Defendants’ motion (Dkt. 790) is GRANTED. Docket number 7'92
`
`shall remain permanently under seal.
`
`ENTERED this 23rd day ofJuly, 2021.
`
`
`Isl
`
`arroll Buchanan
`'
`te Jud e
`
`OLL BUCHANAN
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
`
`
`
`HERES
`
`
`
`Alexandria, Virginia
`
`