Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-02277/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-02277-4/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. 

ADELINE JOHNSON, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

WAL-MART STORES, INC., et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:13-cv-2277 KJM-CKD 

ORDER 

On December 5, 2015, the United States (“Government Party”) filed a notice to 

decline intervention. ECF No. 17. Although the Government Party declined to intervene, it 

requested the following: (1) relator-plaintiff Adeline Johnson maintain the action in the name of 

the United States, provided however, that the action be dismissed only if the court and the 

Attorney General give written consent to the dismissal and their reasons for consenting; (2) the 

court provide the United States with notice and an opportunity be heard if it objects to a 

settlement or dismissal of the action; (3) all pleadings filed in this action be served on the United 

States; (4) orders issued by the court be sent to the United States’ counsel; (5) the court recognize 

the Government Party’s right to order any deposition transcripts, to intervene in this action for 

good cause at a later date, and to seek dismissal of the relator’s action or claim; (6) the 

Government Party be served with all notices of appeal; and (7) the relator’s complaint, the notice 

Case 2:13-cv-02277-KJM-CKD Document 18 Filed 01/12/16 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

of the decision to decline intervention, and the attached proposed order be unsealed, and that 

remaining papers on file in this action remain sealed. Id. 

As will be explained below, the court GRANTS the requests IN PART. 

I. BACKGROUND 

On November 1, 2013, Adeline Johnson (“relator” or “plaintiff-relator”) filed the 

complaint in this action on behalf of the United States. ECF No. 1. Plaintiff-relator brought 

claims against Wal-Mart for allegedly making false claims to a government agency in violation of 

the federal False Claims Act (“FCA”), 31 U.S.C. §§ 3729, et seq. Id. That same day, plaintiffrelator filed a motion to seal the matter under 31 U.S.C. § 3730(b)(2). ECF No. 2. The court 

granted the relator’s motion, as required by statute. ECF No. 3. The matter was ordered to be 

sealed for an initial period of 90 days, subject to the plaintiff-relator’s renewed motion. ECF 

No. 3. On January 29, 2014, the United States filed a motion to extend the time on the seal in 

order to decide whether to intervene in this matter. ECF No. 4. The court granted the motion. 

ECF No. 5. On August 14, the United States filed a second extension request. ECF No. 6. The 

court granted the motion, noting no further extensions of time would be granted without a strong 

showing of good cause. Id. On February 4, 2015, the United States filed its third extension 

request. ECF No. 9. The court granted the extension, noting a further extension request would 

require a “detailed explanation.” ECF No. 10. 

On April 29, 2015, the United States moved the court to partially lift the seal, to 

serve a copy of the complaint on defendant Wal-Mart. ECF No. 12. The court granted this 

motion, while all other filings remained under seal. ECF No. 13. The United States filed its 

fourth extension request on August 3, 2015. ECF No. 14. The court granted this request, noting 

this was the final extension the court would approve. ECF No. 15. On December 5, 2015, the 

United States filed a notice that it would not intervene in this matter at this time. ECF No. 17. 

II. LEGAL STANDARD 

Generally in a qui tam action, "lifting the seal on the entire record is appropriate 

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. 

Case 2:13-cv-02277-KJM-CKD Document 18 Filed 01/12/16 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

U.S. ex rel. Lee v. Horizon West, Inc., No. C 00-2921 SBA, 2006 WL 305966, at *2 (N.D. Cal. 

Feb. 8, 2006). “[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 United States v. CACI Int’l. Inc., 885 F. Supp. 80, 83 (S.D.N.Y. 

1995). The court should also consider the public’s interest in light of the fundamental principle 

that court records are generally open to the public. United States ex rel. Costa v. Baker & Taylor, 

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

III. DISCUSSION 

Here, the Government Party requests the court unseal the relator’s complaint, the 

notice of election to decline intervention, and its proposed order. ECF No. 17. The Government 

Party requests all other documents remain under seal because “in discussing the content and 

extent of the United States’ investigation, such papers are provided by law to the Court alone for 

the sole purpose of evaluating whether the seal and time for making an election to intervene 

should be extended.” Id. 

The Government Party has not provided an explanation of how disclosure of the 

investigative materials would be harmful to any interest. Such harm is not clear from the court’s 

own review of the docket of the case. The Government Party has not suggested any 

governmental privilege, or any harm to ongoing investigations. See Lee, 2006 WL 305966, at *3. 

The documents that the Government Party requests remain under seal do not implicate specific 

people, provide meaningfully substantive details of the investigation, or reveal any attorney 

thought processes. Given the general nature of these documents, the court tentatively finds it 

unnecessary for any part of the case docket to remain sealed. Any party, however, may show 

cause if any as to why the balance of the documents of record in this action should not be 

unsealed. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

(1) Relator-plaintiff shall proceed with this action on behalf of the United 

States. 

///// 

Case 2:13-cv-02277-KJM-CKD Document 18 Filed 01/12/16 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

(2) The original complaint, this order, and the notice of election to decline 

intervention be unsealed, and plaintiff-relators will serve these documents 

upon the defendants. 

(3) The seal be lifted as to all other matters occurring in this action after the 

date of this order; 

(4) The parties shall hereafter serve all pleadings and motions filed in this 

action, including supporting memoranda, upon the United States, as 

provided for in 31 U.S.C. § 3730(c)(3). The United States may order any 

deposition transcripts and is entitled to intervene in this action, for good 

cause, at any time; 

(5) The parties shall serve all notices of appeal upon the United States. 

(6) The Clerk of Court is directed to serve all orders of this court on the United 

States; 

(7) Should the relator or any defendant propose that this action be dismissed, 

settled, or otherwise discontinued, the court will provide the United States 

with notice and an opportunity to be heard before ruling or granting its 

approval; and 

(8) Within fourteen (14) days of the filed date of this order, any party may 

SHOW CAUSE, if any there is, as to why the balance of the documents of 

record in this action should not be unsealed. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: January 11, 2016. 

Case 2:13-cv-02277-KJM-CKD Document 18 Filed 01/12/16 Page 4 of 4