Boyd v. Riverpoint 714, LLC et al

Filing 14

ORDER signed by District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 5/3/2016 ORDERING 1 The complaint, the United States' 13 Notice, this order, and all future filings are UNSEALED, but all other contents of the court's file in this action remain und er TEMPORARY SEAL pending further order of this court; within 14 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; the parties shall hereafter serve a ll pleadings and motions filed in this action, including supporting memoranda, upon the US, as provided for in 31:3730(c)(3), and the US may order any deposition transcripts and is entitled to intervene in this action, for good cause, at any time; th e parties shall serve all notices of appeal upon the US; the Clerk of the Court shall send all orders of this court to the US; and should any relator or defendant propose that this action be dismissed, settled, or otherwise discontinued, the court will solicit the written consent of the US before ruling or granting its approval. (Reader, L)

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 ex rel.
ISHONIQA BOYD,
Plaintiff,

13
14
15
16
17

No. 2:15-cv-1406-KJM-CKD

ORDER
v.
RIVERPOINT 714 LLC, CTC
MANAGEMENT, INC., and DOES 1–30,
et al.,
Defendants.

18
19

On May 2, 2016, the United States gave notice that it had declined to intervene in

20

this qui tam action under the False Claims Act (FCA). Notice, ECF No. 13. The United States

21

requests that the seal be lifted from this case from the complaint and for all future filings, but not

22

from the other filings in this case. Id. These other filings include the United States’ requests for

23

extensions of time to decide whether to intervene, and the declarations and other materials

24

submitted in support of those requests.

25

The FCA provides that a qui tam action must be filed under seal while the United

26

States decides whether to intervene, see 31 U.S.C. § 3730(b)(2), but it clearly contemplates that

27

after the United States makes a decision, the seal will be lifted, see id. § 3730(b)(3); U.S. ex rel.

28

Lee v. Horizon W., Inc., No. 00-2921, 2006 WL 305966, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 8, 2006).
1

1

Generally, the seal will be lifted entirely “unless the government shows that such disclosure

2

would: (1) reveal confidential investigative methods or techniques; (2) jeopardize an ongoing

3

investigation; or (3) harm non-parties.” Id. “[I]f the documents simply describe routine or

4

general investigative procedures, without implicating specific people or providing substantive

5

details, then the Government may not resist disclosure.” Id.; see also United States v. CACI Int’l.

6

Inc., 885 F. Supp. 80, 83 (S.D.N.Y. 1995). The FCA “evinces no specific intent to permit or deny

7

disclosure of in camera material as a case proceeds.” U.S. ex rel. Mikes v. Straus, 846 F. Supp.

8

21, 23 (S.D.N.Y. 1994). Rather, it “invests the court with authority to preserve secrecy of such

9

items or make them available to the parties.” Id. Overall, the court’s decision must also account

10

for the fundamental principle that court records are generally open to the public. U.S. ex rel.

11

Costa v. Baker & Taylor, Inc., 955 F. Supp. 1188, 1191 (N.D. Cal. 1997).

12

Here, the United States’ request to maintain the seal rests on its argument that

13

previous filings were “provided by law to the Court alone for the sole purpose of evaluating

14

whether the seal and time for making an election to intervene should be extended.” Notice at 2.

15

This explanation does not assure the court that a seal is necessary to maintain the confidentiality

16

of “investigative methods or techniques,” to protect ongoing investigations, to protect others who

17

are not a part of this litigation, or for another reason.

18

The court therefore orders as follows:

19

(1) The complaint, ECF No. 1, the United States’ notice, ECF No. 13, this order,

20

and all future filings are UNSEALED, but all other contents of the court’s file in this action

21

remain under TEMPORARY SEAL pending further order of this court;

22
23

(2) Within fourteen days, any party may SHOW CAUSE why the previous filings
in this action should remain under seal;

24

(3) Relator shall serve the complaint on the defendants;

25

(4) The parties shall hereafter serve all pleadings and motions filed in this action,

26

including supporting memoranda, upon the United States, as provided for in 31 U.S.C.

27

§ 3730(c)(3), and the United States may order any deposition transcripts and is entitled to

28

intervene in this action, for good cause, at any time;
2

1

(5) The parties shall serve all notices of appeal upon the United States;

2

(6) The Clerk of the Court shall send all orders of this court to the United States;

3
4

and
(7) Should any relator or defendant propose that this action be dismissed, settled,

5

or otherwise discontinued, the court will solicit the written consent of the United States before

6

ruling or granting its approval.

7
8

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: May 3, 2016

9
10
11

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3