Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_11-cv-03260/USCOURTS-caed-2_11-cv-03260-6/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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES ex rel. BRENT 

STANLEY and PATRICK McKILLOP, 

and STATE OF CALIFORNIA et 

al., ex rel. BRENT STANLEY 

and PATRICK McKILLOP, 

Plaintiffs,

v.

IRON MOUNTAIN, INC., and IRON

MOUNTAIN INFORMATION

MANAGEMENT, INC.,

Defendants.

No. 2:11-cv-03260-GEB-DAD

ORDER 

On March 12, 2015, an order issued requiring the 

parties to “file a joint status report no later than . . . March 

19, 2015, in which they . . . explain the status of this action 

and why the action should not be closed.” (Order, ECF No. 63.) 

The State of California and Relators Brent Stanley and Patrick 

McKillop filed a Joint Status Report in response on March 19, 

2015, stating:

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 41(a) and California Government 

Code § 12652(c)(1), the State of California, 

Relators Brent Stanley and Patrick McKillop, 

and Defendants Iron Mountain Incorporated and 

Iron Mountain Information Management, LLC 

(collectively, the “Parties”) previously 

filed a Joint Stipulation of Dismissal in 

accordance with the terms of a settlement 

agreement entered into among the Parties 

effective as of December 17, 2014. See ECF 

Case 2:11-cv-03260-GEB-DAD Document 65 Filed 03/27/15 Page 1 of 3
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

No. 56. Pursuant to the Parties’ stipulation, 

on December 31, 2014[,] the Court entered an 

Order Dismissing the Claims of the State of 

California, in which inter alia, the claims 

of Relators were dismissed “except as 

otherwise provided in the Agreement.” See ECF 

No. 59. The Agreement specifically provides, 

inter alia, that Relators do not release “any 

claims to entitlement under Cal. Gov’t Code § 

12652(g) to a share of the proceeds of this 

Settlement Agreement.” Agreement at ¶ 4. The 

State of California and Relators have reached 

an agreement in principle regarding Relators’ 

share of the proceeds of the settlement with 

the State of California but have not yet 

finalized that agreement. Other than the 

issue of Relators’ share of the proceeds of 

the settlement with the State of California, 

Relators and the State of California both 

agree to the case being closed. The Relators 

have already resolved their relators’ share 

claims with the United States, San Bernardino 

County, and Santa Clara County.

Accordingly, in order to provide the 

parties’ time to finalize their agreement 

regarding Relators’ share of the State 

settlement, Relators and the State of 

California respectfully request that the 

Court enter an Order to the effect that this 

action will be closed as of May 1, 2015 

unless Relators or the State of California 

request otherwise prior to that date.

Iron Mountain has indicated to relators’ 

counsel that it consents to this request.

Counsel for the County of San Diego has 

also indicated the following to relators’ 

counsel: With the understanding that none of 

the orders of dismissal entered in this 

matter dismisses with prejudice any claims of 

the County of San Diego, the County of San 

Diego has no objection to the closing of this 

case.

(Joint Status Report, ECF No. 64 (emphasis added).)

Based on the parties’ representations concerning the 

matters that remain to be resolved and the anticipated timing to 

do so, a dispositional document shall be filed no later than May 

1, 2015. Failure to respond by this deadline may be construed as 

Case 2:11-cv-03260-GEB-DAD Document 65 Filed 03/27/15 Page 2 of 3
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

3

consent to dismissal of this action without prejudice, and a 

dismissal order could be filed. See E.D. Cal. R. 160(b) (“A 

failure to file dispositional papers on the date prescribed by 

the Court may be grounds for sanctions.”). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 27, 2015

Case 2:11-cv-03260-GEB-DAD Document 65 Filed 03/27/15 Page 3 of 3