Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_12-cv-01970/USCOURTS-caed-2_12-cv-01970-2/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 OF AMERICA, and 

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ex rel. ELISA 

MARTINEZ, 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

QUEST DIAGNOSTICS 

INCORPORATED, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:12-cv-1970 KJM KJN 

ORDER 

 The United States, on behalf of itself and the State of California, have requested 

their fifth extension of time in which to determine whether to intervene in this false claims act 

stemming from alleged improper billing to Medicare and Medicaid. Mot., ECF No. 25. As it has 

in its prior four extensions, it seeks and additional six months, up to and including March 26, 

2015. Id. 

 In the order granting the fourth extension, the court said that any further requests 

by the government for an extension should be accompanied by “a detailed explanation with dates 

and specific timelines, which will be subject to this court’s scrutiny. The explanation should 

detail what prejudice will result if the seal is lifted, and why the United States needs to evaluate 

defendants’ respective positions before it can decide whether to intervene.” ECF No. 20 at 2 

Case 2:12-cv-01970-KJM-KJN Document 26 Filed 10/06/14 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

(citing United States. ex. rel. Costa v. Baker & Taylor, Inc., 955 F. Supp. 1188, 1190-91 (N.D. 

Cal. 1997)). 

 The United States has supported this request with the declaration of Assistant 

United States Attorney Catherine Swann, who describes the steps taken during the last six 

months, the tasks yet to be completed, and the possibility of informal settlement, which will 

require consultation with the Office of the Inspector General, Department of Health and Human 

Services. Decl. of Catherine Swann, ECF No. 25-1. 

 Congress contemplated a term of 60 days for the United States to determine 

whether it would intervene in a qui tam action. 31 U.S.C. § 3730(b)(2). If good cause is shown, 

a court may grant extensions of time. Id. § 3730(b)(3). “The ‘good cause’ requirement of the 

statute is, therefore, a substantive one, which the government can only satisfy by stating a 

convincing rationale for continuing the seal.” Costa, 955 F. Supp. at 1190. The government has 

not satisfied this standard. 

 In its previous order, the court directed the government to provide dates and 

specific timelines, but the current extension request does not provide that level of detail. 

Although the declaration outlines additional tasks the government intends to undertake, it says 

only generally that “the company will need time to analyze” any additional information the 

government provides. ECF No. 25-1 ¶ 7. This level of generality is not a “convincing rationale” 

for continuing to grant the government’s request and thus continuing the seal. United States ex 

rel. Martin v. Life Care Ctrs. of Am., Inc., 912 F. Supp. 2d 618 , 624 (E. D. Tenn. 2012) (“‘This 

practice of conducting one-sided discovery for months or years while the case is under seal was 

not contemplated by Congress and is not authorized by the [FCA].’”) (quoting Costa, 955 F. 

Supp. 2d at 1191) (alteration in original). In this case it appears the government intends to settle 

the case under seal while stalling with respect to intervening. It has not shown this is justified 

under the False Claims Act. 

///// 

///// 

///// 

Case 2:12-cv-01970-KJM-KJN Document 26 Filed 10/06/14 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

 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that: 

 1. The government’s fifth motion for an extension of time is denied; and 

 2. The case is unsealed. 

DATED: October 6, 2014. 

Case 2:12-cv-01970-KJM-KJN Document 26 Filed 10/06/14 Page 3 of 3