`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 817 Filed 08/19/21 Page 1 of 2 PageID# 21382
`
`UNITED STATESDISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
`Alexandria Division
`
`RAI STRATEGIC HOLDINGS, INC.,et al,
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`Vv.
`
`ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES, LLC,ef ai.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`NameNeeecmeNeeeeeStem”SteeSeeeeSee”
`
`Civil Action No. 1:20-cv-393 (LO/TCB)
`
`ORDER
`
`This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiffs RAI Strategic Holdings, Inc. and R.J.
`
`Reynolds Vapor Company’s (“Plaintiffs”) Motion to Seal and supporting memorandum.(Dkts.
`
`811, 814.) Plaintiffs request leave to file under seal the unredacted version ofPlaintiffs’
`
`Amended Answerto Defendant Phillip Morris Products S.A.’s, Second Amended Counterclaims
`
`(“Amended Answer”). (Dkt. 813.)
`
`District courts have authority to seal court documents “if the public’s right of accessis
`
`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.
`
`Uponconsideration of the Plaintiff's filings, the Court makes the following findings.
`
`First, Plaintiffs have provided public notice of its request to seal and interested parties
`
`have been given a reasonable opportunity to object. Plaintiffs filed their motion to seal and
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 817 Filed 08/19/21 Page 2 of 2 PagelD# 21383
`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 817 Filed 08/19/21 Page 2 of 2 PageID# 21383
`
`public notice on August 11, 2021. (See Dkts. 811, 812.) 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 Ashcrafi and the Local Civil Rules.
`
`Second, this Court has considered less drastic alternatives. Plaintiffs submitted a redacted
`
`version of their Amended Answer.
`
`(Dkt. 815.) This selective protection of information
`
`constitutes the least drastic measure of sealing confidential material. See Adams v. Object
`
`~
`
`Innovation, Inc., No. 3:11¢v272-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 Amended Answer. Plaintiff's Amended Answer
`
`contains Plaintiffs’ confidential, proprietary, and sensitive commercial business information.
`
`Public disclosure of this information could bring competitive harm to Plaintiffs.
`
`Accordingly, it is hereby
`
`ORDEREDthatPlaintiffs’ motion to seal (Dkt. 811) is GRANTED. Docket number 813
`
`shall remain permanently underseal.
`
`ENTERED this 19th day of August, 2021.
`
`/s/
`oBBarhanaan
`ait
`D
`UNITEDSafedSatesMaginretesudpesE
`
`Alexandria, Virginia
`
`