Boyd v. Riverpoint 714, LLC et al

Filing 16

ORDER signed by District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 2/9/2016 ORDERING that the United States' Request to retain the seal on the remaining court documents is DENIED; within 5 business days of the date this order is filed, any party may SHOW CAUSE in camera why the remaining documents should be redacted before unsealing; the Clerk of the Court shall maintain a temporary seal over the remaining documents pending the parties' response to the show cause order above.(Reader, L)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ex rel.
ISHONIQA BOYD,
Plaintiff,
v.

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

ORDER

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

18
19

On May 2, 2016, the United States filed a notice of election to decline intervention

20

in this qui tam action brought under the False Claims Act (FCA), 31 U.S.C. §§ 3729 et seq. ECF

21

No. 13. On May 4, 2016, this court, in reviewing the declination, ordered several documents on

22

the docket be unsealed: (1) the complaint (ECF No. 1); (2) the United States’ notice of election to

23

decline intervention (ECF No. 13); and (3) the court’s May 4, 2016 order (ECF No. 14). ECF No.

24

14. In addition, the court ordered the United States to show cause why the remaining court

25

documents, which included two requests to extend the deadline for lifting the seal and supporting

26

declarations attached thereto (ECF Nos. 6, 11), should not be unsealed. Id. In its response to the

27

court’s order, the United States requested that the extension requests and supporting documents

28

remain under seal, or alternatively, that the court allow five business days for the United States to
1

1

propose redactions to such documents to protect specific confidential information from public

2

disclosure. ECF No. 15. As explained below, this court DENIES the United States’ request to

3

retain the seal over the remaining court documents, but GRANTS the United States’ request for

4

an opportunity to explain why some information should be redacted.

5

I.

6

LEGAL STANDARD
The court provided the applicable legal standard in its May 4, 2016 order. ECF

7

No. 14. The FCA provides that a qui tam action must be filed under seal while the United States

8

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

9

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

10

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

11

seal will be lifted entirely “unless the government shows that such disclosure would: (1) reveal

12

confidential investigative methods or techniques; (2) jeopardize an ongoing investigation; or

13

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

14

procedures, without implicating specific people or providing substantive details, then the

15

Government may not resist disclosure.” Id.; see also United States v. CACI Int’l Inc., 885 F.

16

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

17

of in camera material as a case proceeds.” U.S. ex rel. Mikes v. Straus, 846 F. Supp. 21, 23

18

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

19

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

20

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

21

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

22

II.

23
24
25
26
27
28

DISCUSSION
Here, the United States provides several reasons to retain the seal over its seal

extension requests:
First, under the federal False Claims Act, the government’s decision
regarding intervention triggers the unsealing only of the relator’s
complaint, not the entire docket p receding intervention. Second,
revealing the contents of the gove rnment’s requests to extend the
seal and the interv ention deadline would give present and future
defendants a window into confidential governm
ent fraud
investigations and would weak en the governm ent’s antifraud
2

1
2
3
4
5
6

efforts. Third, unsealing such requ ests would cause harm . Fourth,
unsealing such requests in qui tam cases creates a catch -22 for the
government: it can either support its requests for extensions of the
seal and intervention deadline by pub licly divulging the details of a
confidential investigation or om it such details and risk the court
denying an extension.
ECF No. 15 at 2.
With respect to the first reason, the court declines to reconsider its previous

7

interpretation of the applicable legal standard articulated in its May 4, 2016 order. Although it is

8

true the FCA does not explicitly reference the unsealing of any documents filed with the court

9

except the complaint, the FCA also does not expressly preclude the court’s determining the

10

propriety of lifting the seal on other documents. U.S. ex rel. Erickson, 339 F. Supp. 2d at 1126.

11

It is within the court’s authority to determine if the seal should be lifted in part or in whole. See

12

U.S. ex rel. Lee v. Horizon Wests, Inc., 2006 WL 305966, at *2.

13

The court is also not persuaded by the second reason. The United States argues

14

the requests for extension reveal “specific, confidential information regarding the investigation,”

15

such as “a description of [a] meeting between the government and a third party,” “the

16

government’s methods for obtaining relevant documents,” and the “government’s investigatory

17

plan going forward.” ECF No. 15 at 4. But a careful in camera examination of the cited

18

documents shows that they merely describe routine investigative procedures, without implicating

19

specific people or providing substantive details. In discussing the reasons an extension was

20

warranted, the United States provided a general description of the nature and status of requests

21

made to further its investigation. See, e.g., ECF No. 11-1 at 2. Although the second request to

22

extend the seal detailed specific categories of information and documents being requested, it did

23

not disclose any confidential information, investigative techniques, or attorney thought processes.

24

See id. Thus, this situation is analogous to the one described in United States v. CACI, in which

25

the court denied a request to retain extension requests under seal because the requests did not

26

provide any substantive details about the investigation. 885 F. Supp. at 83.

27
28

Similarly, with respect to the third reason, it is not clear how disclosure of the
remaining court documents would be harmful. The United States speculates that unsealing the
3

1

requests would generally interfere with the government’s anti-fraud efforts, but does not describe

2

any specific, concrete harm that would follow any unsealing. Asserting speculative and general

3

harms, without more, does not satisfy the required showing that disclosure would reveal

4

confidential investigative methods or techniques, jeopardize an ongoing investigation, or harm

5

non-parties. See U.S. ex rel. Lee v. Horizon Wests, Inc., 2006 WL 305966, at *2.

6

Finally, the fourth “catch-22” argument is unavailing. If, as appears to be the case

7

here, the United States erred on the side of withholding details in the event its sealing request was

8

denied, then those details will not be disclosed upon unsealing.

9

III.

10
11
12
13

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. The United States’ request to retain the seal on the remaining court
documents is DENIED.
2. Within five (5) business days of the date this order is filed, any party may

14

SHOW CAUSE in camera why the remaining documents should be

15

redacted before unsealing.

16
17
18
19

3. The Clerk of the Court shall maintain a temporary seal over the remaining
documents pending the parties’ response to the show cause order above.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: June 9, 2016

20
21
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4