Williams, et al. v. Johnson & Johnson, et al.

Filing 30

ORDER signed by District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 5/22/2018 ORDERING the 1 Complaint, 22 Amended Complaint, 29 Notice of Election to Decline and this order UNSEALED. All other previous filing will remain TEMPORARILY SEALED pending further order of this court and ORDERING the parties to SHOW CAUSE within 14 days why the previous filings in this action should remain under seal. (Donati, J)

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.,
TUESDAY WILLIAMS,
Plaintiffs,

13
14
15

No. 2:16-cv-00057-KJM-AC

ORDER

v.
JOHNSON & JOHNSON and JANSSEN
BIOTECH, INC.,

16

Defendants.

17
18

On May 14, 2018, the United States gave notice that it declines to intervene in this

19

qui tam action. ECF No. 29. The United States requests the court unseal the relator’s complaint

20

and amendments and the United States’ notice declining to intervene and its accompanying

21

proposed order, but requests that other previously filed documents remain under seal. Id. at 2.

22

These documents include, for example, the United States’ request for extensions of time to decide

23

whether to intervene, including declarations and other materials submitted in support of those

24

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 contemplates that after the

27

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

28
1

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

investigation; or (3) harm non-parties.” Horizon W., Inc., 2006 WL 305966, at *2 (emphasis in

5

original). “[I]f the documents simply describe routine or general investigative procedures,

6

without implicating specific people or providing substantive details, then the Government may

7

not resist disclosure.” Id. (citing United States v. CACI Int’l. Inc., 885 F. Supp. 80, 83 (S.D.N.Y.

8

1995)). “Congress did not intend that the government should be allowed to prolong the period in

9

which the file is sealed indefinitely.” United States ex rel. Costa v. Baker & Taylor, Inc., 955 F.

10

Supp. 1188, 1190 (N.D. Cal. 1997); U.S. ex rel. Mikes v. Straus, 846 F. Supp. 21, 23 (S.D.N.Y.

11

1994) (noting the FCA “evinces no specific intent to permit or deny disclosure of in camera

12

material as a case proceeds”). Rather, the FCA “invests the court with authority to preserve

13

secrecy of such items or make them available to the parties.” Id. Ultimately, the court’s decision

14

must account for the fundamental principle that court records are generally open to the public.

15

See Baker & Taylor, Inc., 955 F. Supp. at 1191.

16

Here, the United States requests the court maintain the seal “because in discussing

17

the content and extent of the United States’ investigation, such papers are provided by law to the

18

Court alone for the sole purpose of evaluating whether the seal and time for making an election to

19

intervene should be extended.” ECF No. 29 at 2. The United States’ explanation does not assure

20

the court that a seal is necessary to maintain the confidentiality of investigative methods or

21

techniques, to protect ongoing investigations, to protect others who are not a part of this litigation,

22

or for another reason. The court therefore orders as follows:

23

(1) All pleadings filed and orders issued in this action will be served on the United States.  

24

The United States will be notified of any proposal that this action be dismissed, 

25

settled or otherwise discontinued and will be provided an opportunity to be heard 

26

before the court rules on any such proposal.  The United States retains the right to 

27

intervene, for good cause, at a later date;  

28
2

1

(2) The complaint, ECF No. 1, first amended complaint, ECF No. 22, the United

2

States’ notice of election to decline intervention, ECF No. 29, and this order are

3

UNSEALED;

4

(3) All other previous filings remain under TEMPORARY SEAL pending further

5

order of this court; and

6

(4) Within fourteen days, any party may SHOW CAUSE why the previous filings

7

in this action should remain under seal.

8

IT IS SO ORDERED.

9

DATED: May 22, 2018.

10
11

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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