IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-40995

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ex rel, JOSHUA HARMAN,

 Plaintiff

v.

TRINITY INDUSTRIES, INCORPORATED; TRINITY HIGHWAY 

PRODUCTS, L.L.C., 

 Defendants - Appellees

v.

THE CENTER FOR AUTO SAFETY; THE SAFETY INSTITUTE, 

INCORPORATED, 

 Appellants

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Eastern District of Texas Case 

USDC No. 2:12-CV-89

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SMITH, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

April 8, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

 Case: 14-40995 Document: 00512998148 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/08/2015
No. 14-40995

This is an appeal of the district court’s denial of a motion to intervene in 

a False Claims Act case concerning alleged false representations regarding 

guard rail specifications. The United States, by and through Relator Joshua 

Harman, (collectively “United States”) brought suit against Trinity Industries, 

Inc., and Trinity Highway Products, LLC, (collectively “Trinity”) regarding 

undisclosed and improper modifications to guardrail ends. The modifications 

have led to malfunctions and safety issues. In August 2014, The Center for 

Auto Safety and the Safety Institute (collectively “Safety Groups”) moved to 

intervene under Rule 24(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for the 

limited purpose of seeking to unseal documents filed in this case. The district 

court denied the motion to intervene with little explanation and then denied 

the motion to unseal because the Safety Groups lacked standing. The Safety

Groups then filed the present appeal. 

A $175 million verdict was rendered against Trinity after trial in October 

of 2014. The United States then moved to unseal the documents and the Safety

Groups filed another motion to intervene. The district court subsequently 

granted the United States’ motion to unseal the record, but denied without 

prejudice the second motion to intervene on the basis that its order unsealing 

the record made it largely moot.1

Following oral argument on January 8, 2015, the parties filed various 

letters pursuant to Rule 28(j) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. Of 

particular significance is the 28(j) letter filed by the Safety Groups on March 

6, 2015, asserting that this appeal is not now moot. We disagree. The Safety 

Groups sought to intervene for “the limited purpose of seeking to unseal 

documents filed in the case.” The district court has now ordered those 

documents to be unsealed. Although the district court failed to specify its 

1 Trinity has appealed the district court’s order unsealing the record, (No. 15-40337).

2

 

 Case: 14-40995 Document: 00512998148 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/08/2015
No. 14-40995

reason for the denial of the first motion to intervene, it has since ordered the 

relief that formed the basis for the motion. This appeal is limited to the order 

entered in the district court on September 4, 2014, denying the first motion to 

intervene. The Safety Groups have now appealed the district court’s denial of 

the second motion to intervene and that appeal remains pending.

For the reasons set out herein, this appeal is DISMISSED.

3

 Case: 14-40995 Document: 00512998148 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/08/2015