Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_12-cv-01699/USCOURTS-caed-2_12-cv-01699-10/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

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. 

No. 2:12-cv-01699-KJM-EFB *SEALED* 

ORDER REQUIRING SUPPLEMENTAL 

BRIEFING REGARDING CALIFORNIA’S 

EX PARTE MOTION FOR A SIXTH 

EXTENSION OF TIME TO CONSIDER 

INTERVENTION AND TO RETAIN 

STATUTORY SEAL 

FILED UNDER SEAL 

This qui tam case was filed under seal on June 26, 2012, and has remained under 

seal ever since. On November 7, 2016, the court tentatively granted the State of California’s 

request for a sixth extension of time extending the time to consider intervention and to retain the 

statutory seal, subject to hearing from counsel on December 8, 2016. Order, ECF No. 59. At that 

hearing, the court identified several questions warranting supplemental briefing before the court 

Case 2:12-cv-01699-KJM-JDP Document 62 Filed 12/09/16 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

makes a final determination as to whether to finally grant a sixth extension. Accordingly, the 

State of California is instructed to submit supplemental briefing addressing the following 

questions: 

1. Whether Congress intended the statutory seal to be extended for purposes other 

than the government’s criminal investigation. See, e.g., United States ex rel. Lujan v. Hughes 

Aircraft Co., 67 F.3d 242, 245 (9th Cir. 1995) (by providing for the seal provision, Congress 

intended to strike a balance between “the purposes of qui tam actions [and] ... law enforcement 

needs [.]”); United States ex rel. Costa v. Bakery & Taylor, Inc., 955 F.Supp. 1188, 1190 (N.D. 

Cal. 1997) (refusing to grant government’s extension where purpose for extension was not tied to 

criminal investigation). 

2. Whether Congress intended the statutory seal to ever extend substantially 

further than the 60-day mandatory period. See, e.g., United States ex rel. Martin v. Life Care 

Cntrs. Of America, Inc., 912 F.Supp.2d 618 (E.D. Tenn. 2012) (refusing to maintain seal over 

documents after government’s notice of intervention four years after the complaint was filed). 

3. Whether the public has any interests in maintaining the statutory seal past the 

60-day mandatory period. 

4. Whether the government’s request for extension in this case should be granted 

in full or not, in light of its ability to intervene at a later date. See 31 U.S.C. § 3730(c)(3). 

The brief shall be no longer than twenty pages and shall be filed by December 30, 

2016. The brief may be supported by a supplemental declaration with appropriate exhibits. The 

complaint and all other filings shall remain under seal until further order of this court. 

 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: December 8, 2016 

Case 2:12-cv-01699-KJM-JDP Document 62 Filed 12/09/16 Page 2 of 2