Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-00539/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-00539-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 375
Nature of Suit: False Claims Act
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 ex rel. RICHARD 

RICKS, et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

MENLO WORLDWIDE GOVERNMENT 

SERVICES, LLC, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:13-cv-00539-KJM-AC 

ORDER 

On April 23, 2016, the United States gave notice that it had decided to intervene in 

this qui tam action under the False Claims Act (FCA), 31 U.S.C. §§ 3729 et seq. ECF No. 30. 

On May 3, 2016, this court, in reviewing the notice of intervention, ordered that the action be 

unsealed, that the first amended complaint (ECF No. 29) and the United States’ notice of 

intervention (ECF No. 30) be unsealed, and that all other previous filings remain under temporary 

seal pending further order. ECF No. 31. The court ordered any party to show cause why the 

previous filings, which included the original complaint, several requests for extensions of time for 

the United States to decide whether to intervene, and declarations and other materials submitted 

in support of those requests, should remain under seal. Id. On May 17, 2016, the United States 

responded to the court’s order, requesting that the extension requests remain under seal. ECF 

Case 2:13-cv-00539-KJM-AC Document 36 Filed 06/10/16 Page 1 of 4
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. 35. As explained below, this court DENIES the United States’ request to retain the seal over 

the extension requests and LIFTS the temporary seal over the previous filings. 

I. LEGAL STANDARD 

The court provided the applicable legal standard in its May 3, 2016 order. ECF 

No. 31. The FCA provides that a qui tam action must be filed under seal while the United States 

decides whether to intervene, see 31 U.S.C. § 3730(b)(2), but it clearly contemplates that after the 

United States makes a decision, the seal will be lifted, see id. § 3730(b)(3); U.S. ex rel. Lee v. 

Horizon W., Inc., No. 00-2921, 2006 WL 305966, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 8, 2006). Generally, the 

seal will be lifted entirely “unless the government shows that such disclosure would: (1) reveal 

confidential investigative methods or techniques; (2) jeopardize an ongoing investigation; or 

(3) harm non-parties.” Id. “[I]f the documents simply describe routine or general investigative 

procedures, without implicating specific people or providing substantive details, then the 

Government may not resist disclosure.” Id.; see also United States v. CACI Int’l Inc., 885 F. 

Supp. 80, 83 (S.D.N.Y. 1995). The FCA “evinces no specific intent to permit or deny disclosure 

of in camera material as a case proceeds.” U.S. ex rel. Mikes v. Straus, 846 F. Supp. 21, 23 

(S.D.N.Y. 1994). Rather, it “invests the court with authority to preserve secrecy of such items or 

make them available to the parties.” Id. Overall, the court’s decision must also account for the 

fundamental principle that court records are generally open to the public. U.S. ex rel. Costa v. 

Baker & Taylor, Inc., 955 F. Supp. 1188, 1191 (N.D. Cal. 1997). 

II. DISCUSSION 

Here, the United States provides several reasons to retain the seal over its seal 

extension requests: 

First, the federal False Claims Act expressly provides for the 

unsealing of a Relator’s complaint only—not the entire docket—

when the United States makes an intervention decision. Second, 

revealing the contents of the government’s requests to extend the 

seal would give future defendants a window into confidential 

government fraud investigations and could weaken the 

government’s antifraud efforts . . . . Third, unsealing the requests 

could cause harm. Fourth, lifting the seal creates a “Catch-22” for 

the government that could limit its ability to provide the Court 

detailed information regarding the progress of the government’s 

investigation in connection with requests to extend the seal. 

Case 2:13-cv-00539-KJM-AC Document 36 Filed 06/10/16 Page 2 of 4
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

Finally, no party has requested these documents be unsealed or 

argued any legitimate need exists for their disclosure. 

ECF No. 35 at 1. 

With respect to the first and fifth reasons, the court declines to reconsider its 

previous interpretation of the applicable legal standard articulated in its May 3, 2016 order. 

Although it is true the FCA does not explicitly reference the unsealing of any documents filed 

with the court except the complaint, the FCA also does not expressly preclude the court’s 

determining the propriety of lifting the seal on other documents. U.S. ex rel. Erickson, 339 F. 

Supp. 2d at 1126. It is within the court’s authority to determine if the seal should be lifted in part 

or in whole. See U.S. ex rel. Lee v. Horizon Wests, Inc., 2006 WL 305966, at *2. 

The court is also not persuaded by the second reason. The United States argues 

the requests for extension reveal “specific, confidential information regarding the investigation,” 

such as “a description of meetings, discussion methods and [the] investigatory plan going 

forward.” ECF No. 35 at 4–5. But a careful in camera examination of the extension requests 

shows that they merely describe routine investigative procedures, without implicating specific 

people or providing substantive details. In discussing the reasons an extension was warranted, the 

United States provided a general description of the nature and status of requests made to further 

its investigation. See, e.g., ECF No. 24. Although the November 23, 2015 request to extend the 

seal detailed slightly more specific categories of information and documents being requested, 

such as “information concern[ing] the contract at issue, corporate knowledge, and thousands of 

claims under different contract provisions,” id. at 2, it did not disclose any confidential 

information, investigative techniques, or attorney thought processes. Thus, this situation is 

analogous to the one described in United States v. CACI, in which the court denied a request to 

retain extension requests under seal because the requests did not provide any substantive details 

about the investigation. 885 F. Supp. at 83. 

Similarly, with respect to the third reason, it is not clear how disclosure of the 

remaining court documents would be harmful. The United States speculates that unsealing the 

requests would generally interfere with the government’s anti-fraud efforts, but does not describe 

Case 2:13-cv-00539-KJM-AC Document 36 Filed 06/10/16 Page 3 of 4
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 

4

any specific, concrete harm that would follow any unsealing. Asserting speculative and general 

harms, without more, does not satisfy the required showing that disclosure would reveal 

confidential investigative methods or techniques, jeopardize an ongoing investigation, or harm 

non-parties. See U.S. ex rel. Lee v. Horizon Wests, Inc., 2006 WL 305966, at *2. 

Finally, the fourth “catch-22” argument is unavailing. If, as appears to be the case 

here, the United States erred on the side of withholding details in the event its sealing request was 

denied, then those details will not be disclosed upon unsealing. 

III. CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

1. The United States’ request to retain the seal on the extension requests is 

DENIED. 

2. The temporary seal on the previous filings is LIFTED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: June 9, 2016 

Case 2:13-cv-00539-KJM-AC Document 36 Filed 06/10/16 Page 4 of 4