McCaffery et al v. Alternative Learning Center et al
Filing
54
ORDER signed by District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 4/11/2017 ORDERING that the #1 complaint, the Government Entities' #46 notice, this order, and all future filings are UNSEALED, but all other contents of the court's file in this action remain under TEMPORARY SEAL pending further order of this court. Within fourteen days, any party may SHOW CAUSE why the previous filings in this action should remain under seal. Relator shall serve the complaint on the defendants. (Zignago, K.)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
12
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and
STATE OF CALIFORNIA ex rel.
BEVERLY MCCAFFERY,
13
Plaintiffs,
14
15
16
No. 2:12-cv-01156-KJM-DB
ORDER
v.
ALTERNATIVE LEARNING CENTER,
et al.,
Defendants.
17
18
On October 18, 2016, the United States and the State of California (the
19
20
Government Entities) filed a joint notice of election to intervention for settlement purposes in this
21
qui tam action brought under the False Claims Act (FCA), 31 U.S.C. §§ 3729 et seq., and the
22
California False Claims Act, Cal. Gov’t Code § 12652(c)(6)(B). Notice, ECF No. 46. The
23
Government Entities request that the seal be lifted from certain documents in this case, namely
24
the notice and order on intervention, the complaint, and all future filings, but not from the other
25
filings in this case. Id. at 2. These other filings include the United States’ requests for extensions
26
of time to decide whether to intervene, and the declarations and other materials submitted in
27
support of those requests.
28
/////
1
1
The FCA provides that a qui tam action must be filed under seal while the United
2
States decides whether to intervene, see 31 U.S.C. § 3730(b)(2), but it clearly contemplates that
3
after the United States makes a decision, the seal will be lifted, see id. § 3730(b)(3); U.S. ex rel.
4
Lee v. Horizon W., Inc., No. 00-2921, 2006 WL 305966, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 8, 2006).
5
Generally, the seal will be lifted entirely “unless the government shows that such disclosure
6
would: (1) reveal confidential investigative methods or techniques; (2) jeopardize an ongoing
7
investigation; or (3) harm non-parties.” Id. “[I]f the documents simply describe routine or
8
general investigative procedures, without implicating specific people or providing substantive
9
details, then the Government may not resist disclosure.” Id.; see also United States v. CACI Int’l.
10
Inc., 885 F. Supp. 80, 83 (S.D.N.Y. 1995). The FCA “evinces no specific intent to permit or deny
11
disclosure of in camera material as a case proceeds.” U.S. ex rel. Mikes v. Straus, 846 F. Supp.
12
21, 23 (S.D.N.Y. 1994). Rather, it “invests the court with authority to preserve secrecy of such
13
items or make them available to the parties.” Id. Overall, the court’s decision must also account
14
for the fundamental principle that court records are generally open to the public. U.S. ex rel.
15
Costa v. Baker & Taylor, Inc., 955 F. Supp. 1188, 1191 (N.D. Cal. 1997).
16
Here, the Government Entities’ request to maintain the seal because “in discussing
17
the content and extent of the Government Entities’ investigation, such papers are provided by law
18
to the Court alone for the sole purpose of evaluating whether the seal and time for making an
19
election to intervene should be extended.” Notice 2. This explanation does not assure the court
20
that a seal is necessary to maintain the confidentiality of “investigative methods or techniques,” to
21
protect ongoing investigations, to protect others who are not a part of this litigation, or for another
22
reason.
23
The court therefore orders as follows:
24
(1) The complaint, ECF No. 1, the Government Entities’ notice, ECF No. 46, this
25
order, and all future filings are UNSEALED, but all other contents of the court’s file in this action
26
remain under TEMPORARY SEAL pending further order of this court;
27
28
(2) Within fourteen days, any party may SHOW CAUSE why the previous filings
in this action should remain under seal; and
2
1
(3) Relator shall serve the complaint on the defendants.
2
IT IS SO ORDERED.
3
DATED: April 11, 2017.
4
5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?