Source: http://www.falseclaimsactlawblog.com/2011/10/courts-increasingly-skeptical-of.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 06:10:44+00:00

Document:
As shown by several recent opinions in the last several months, however, courts are taking an increasingly skeptical view of requests to continue the seal both of dismissed qui tam complaints and of the government's motions for extension to investigate. See US ex rel Danner v. Quality Health Care, Inc., (D. Kan. 10/18/11); US ex rel Durham v. Prospect Waterproofing, Inc., (D. D.C. 10/4/11); US ex rel Littlewood v. King Pharmaceuticals, Inc., (D. Md. 8/29/11), US ex re Rostholder v. Omnicare, (D. Md. 7/28/11). In these decisions, courts unsealed qui tam complaints in the face of claims by relators that they feared retaliation from employers. In turn, these opinions reflect an attitude that courts will no longer defer to claims by relators or the government that they will be prejudiced or harmed if qui tam pleadings are unsealed. See FCA Alert for a discussion of Danner and Durham.
The most thorough case addressing sealing and the request of a relator and the government to keep portions of the qui tam court file under seal is US ex rel Littlewood v. King Pharmaceuticals, Inc. which can also be found at 2011 WL 3805607.
In US ex rel Littlewood v. King Pharmaceuticals, Inc., the relator filed a qui tam under seal pursuant to the False Claims Act alleging that defendant was engaged in an illegal scheme to promote off label uses of a drug. The government declined to intervene, and the relator moved to dismiss the underling suit. Though consenting to dismissal, the government requested that the court unseal the relator’s amended complaint and the Court’s dismissal order on the grounds that continuing the seal over those records “would violate the strong presumption in favor of the public’s right to examine and copy judicial records.” At the same time, the government moved to continue the seal on all other papers in the action, including its two previously filed motions seeking extensions of time in which to decide to intervene.
The relator opposed the government’s request to unseal any portion of the file, claiming that unsealing would subject her to significant harm in part because she was still employed by the defendant. The relator argued further that she should not be “penalized for coming forward” and she asked for the court’s “compassion” in retaining the seal on the grounds that she was a mother to two young children.
Additionally, the Court refused to continue to seal the government’s motions for extension of the seal in order to permit government to investigate. The Court analogized the motion to continue the seal to Rule 26(c), Fed. R. Civ. P., which requires courts to consider and balance the harm that might result from disclosure and determine whether the harm of unsealing will outweigh need for documents. Courts will usually decline to unseal if doing so results in the release of confidential investigative techniques, of information that could jeopardize an ongoing investigation, or of matters which could injure nonparties. Unsealing, the Court found, is appropriate if disclosure results in “routine investigative procedures" becoming known "which anyone with rudimentary knowledge of investigative processes would assume would be utilized in the regular course of business.” Finding that the government’s motions merely outlined “the kind of investigative procedures that anyone with rudimentary knowledge of investigative processes” would assume to be used, the Court denied the government’s motion.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.