Rinehart et al v. Walgreen Co.

Filing 60

ORDER signed by District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 5/15/17: The court tentatively finds it unnecessary for any part of the case to remain sealed. Within fourteen (14) days of this order, any party may SHOW CAUSE, if any there is, as to why the balance of the documents of record in this action should not be unsealed. (Kaminski, H)

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,
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ex rel.
DEBBIE G. RINEHART,

13

Plaintiffs,

14
15

No. 2:14-cv-0148 KJM EFB

ORDER

v.
WALGREEN CO.,

16

Defendant.

17
18
19

In its prior order unsealing the complaint and notice of intervention in this case,

20

the court explained “all other previously-filed contents of the Court’s file in this action remain

21

under seal and [shall] not be made public, or served upon defendant, pending further order of the

22

Court.” ECF No. 57. The court here revisits whether to unseal the balance of the docket in this

23

case.

24

Generally, “lifting the seal on the entire record is appropriate unless the

25

government shows that such disclosure would: (1) reveal confidential investigative methods or

26

techniques; (2) jeopardize an ongoing investigation; or (3) harm non-parties.” U.S. ex rel. Lee v.

27

Horizon Wests, Inc., No. C 00-2921 SBA, 2006 WL 305966, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 8, 2006). “[I]f

28

the documents simply describe routine or general investigative procedures, without implicating
1

1

specific people or providing substantive details, then the Government may not resist disclosure.”

2

Id.; see United States v. CACI Int’l. Inc., 885 F. Supp. 80, 83 (S.D.N.Y. 1995). “The Qui Tam

3

statute evinces no specific intent to permit or deny disclosure of in camera material as a case

4

proceeds.” United States ex rel. Mikes v. Straus, 846 F. Supp. 21, 23 (S.D.N.Y. 1994). “[T]he

5

statute necessarily invests the court with authority to preserve secrecy of such items or make them

6

available to the parties.” Id. at 23. The court should also consider the public’s interest because

7

court records are generally open to the public. United States ex rel. Costa v. Baker & Taylor,

8

Inc., 955 F. Supp. 1188, 1191 (N.D. Cal. 1997).

9

The United States’ request to keep the balance of the docket under seal provides

10

minimal explanation. ECF No. 53. In particular, the United States has not provided an

11

explanation of how disclosure of all the materials in the case file would be harmful. Such harm is

12

not clear from the court’s review of the file either. The United States has not suggested any

13

governmental privilege exists, or pointed to any harm to ongoing investigations. See United

14

States ex rel. Lee, 2006 WL 305966, at *3.

15

Given the general nature of these documents, the court tentatively finds it

16

unnecessary for any part of the case to remain sealed. Within fourteen (14) days of this order,

17

any party may SHOW CAUSE, if any there is, as to why the balance of the documents of record

18

in this action should not be unsealed.

19

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20
21

DATED: May 15, 2017.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2