Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_12-cv-01699/USCOURTS-caed-2_12-cv-01699-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 31:3729 False Claims Act

---

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

 1

ORDER ON CALIFORNIA’S EX PARTE MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF 

 TIME TO CONSIDER INTERVENTION AND TO RETAIN STATUTORY SEAL

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, and the 

STATES OF CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, 

CONNECTICUT, DELAWARE, GEORGIA, 

INDIANA, LOUISIANA, MARYLAND, 

MASSACHUSETTS, MICHIGAN, 

NEVADA, NEW JERSEY, NEW YORK, 

NORTH CAROLINA, RHODE ISLAND, 

TENNESSEE, VIRGINIA, WASHINGTON, 

and the DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ex rel. 

LOYD F. SCHMUCKLEY, JR., 

Plaintiffs,

v. 

RITE AID CORPORATION, 

Defendant.

Case No. 2:12-CV-1699 KJM EFB 

ORDER ON STATE OF CALIFORNIA’S 

UNOPPOSED EX PARTE MOTION FOR 

EXTENSION OF TIME TO CONSIDER 

INTERVENTION AND TO RETAIN 

STATUTORY SEAL 

FILED UNDER SEAL 

 Upon consideration of the State of California’s unopposed ex parte application for a second 

extension of the seal period and continuance of the scheduling conference, good cause shown, the 

court orders as follows: 

1. The State of California and all other co-plaintiff states shall have through and 

including August 27, 2015, to notify the court of their respective decisions on whether to 

intervene in this action; 

Case 2:12-cv-01699-KJM-JDP Document 44 Filed 03/26/15 Page 1 of 2
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

 2

ORDER ON CALIFORNIA’S EX PARTE MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF 

 TIME TO CONSIDER INTERVENTION AND TO RETAIN STATUTORY SEAL

2. The complaint and all other filings shall remain under seal until the State of 

California and all other co-plaintiff states notice their election, or until further order of this court; 

and 

3. The status (pretrial scheduling) conference shall be set for a time after the State of 

California and all other co-plaintiff states notify the court of their respective decisions on whether 

to intervene in this action; and 

4. In light of the lengthy period of time this case has been pending, any further request 

for an extension of time to decide whether to intervene must include a detailed description of 

activities following this extension and a detailed justification of the need for additional time. U.S. 

ex. Rel. Costa v. Baker & Taylor, Inc., 955 F. Supp. 1188, 1190-91 (N.D. Cal. 1997) (explaining 

that the public has an interest in open court records and the period during which the government 

may keep the complaint sealed was not intended to be indefinite). The public interest served by 

protecting against indefinite sealing applies to the federal FCA’s corresponding state statute, the 

CFCA. See State ex rel. McCann v. Bank of Am., N.A., 191 Cal. App. 4th 897, 907 (2011) 

(“Since the CFCA is patterned on similar federal legislation, federal decisions are persuasive on 

the meaning of the CFCA.”); Wells v. One2One Learning Found., 39 Cal. 4th 1164, 1215 (2006), 

as modified (Oct. 25, 2006) (“No California decision has discussed the purpose of the CFCA's 

seal requirement. However, several federal cases, addressing the CFCA’s similar provision, have 

indicated that the interests served include making sure the qui tam action does not alert 

wrongdoers, prior to intervention by the government, that they are under investigation.”). 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: March 25, 2015. 

Case 2:12-cv-01699-KJM-JDP Document 44 Filed 03/26/15 Page 2 of 2