Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-02277/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-02277-1/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, ex rel. 

JOHNSON, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

WAL-MART STORES, INC., et al, 

Defendants. 

No. 2:13-CV-02277 KJM CKD 

ORDER ON THE UNITED STATES’ 

THIRD REQUEST FOR AN EXTENSION 

OF TIME TO DECIDE WHETHER TO 

INTERVENE AND EXTENSION OF THE 

SEAL ON THE QUI TAM COMPLAINT 

FILED UNDER SEAL 

On February 4, 2015, the United States made its third ex parte request under the False 

Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. § 3730(b)(3), to extend the time by six months for the United States to 

inform the court of their respective decisions on whether they will intervene in this action. ECF 

No. 9. No objections to this request were filed. 

Case 2:13-cv-02277-KJM-CKD Document 10 Filed 02/12/15 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

Upon consideration of the United States’ ex parte application for an extension of the seal 

period and continuance of the scheduling conference, and for good cause shown, the court hereby 

rules as follows: 

1. The United States and California shall have through and including August 4, 2015, 

to notify the court of their respective decisions on whether to intervene in this action. 

2. The complaint and all other filings shall remain under seal until the United States 

notices its election, or until further order of this court. 

3. In light of this lengthy extension, if the United States seeks a further extension 

again, it should provide a detailed explanation, 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. 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). 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATE: February 11, 2015. 

Case 2:13-cv-02277-KJM-CKD Document 10 Filed 02/12/15 Page 2 of 2