1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 United States of America, et al., Case No.: 2:20-cv-01840-JAD-NJK
4 Plaintiffs Order Granting Notice of Dismissal, 5 v. Denying Motion to Maintain Seal, and Closing Case 6 Glen Amador, et al., [ECF Nos. 11, 12] 7 Defendants 8 Plaintiff-relators brought this qui tam action on behalf of the United States, the state of 9 Nevada, and the state of California against defendants for allegedly fraudulent Medicare and 10 Medicaid claims under the Federal False Claims Act (FCA).1 The United States, Nevada, and 11 California (the government) have stated an intention not to intervene, so the plaintiff-relators 12 move to voluntarily dismiss their action.2 The government consents to the dismissal.3 I 13 therefore dismiss this case with prejudice as to the plaintiff-relators and without prejudice as to 14 the government plaintiffs. 15 Plaintiff-relator Charlita Teagues also moves to maintain the seal on this case to retain 16 her anonymity.4 The government opposes to the extent Teagues requests this seal under the 17 FCA’s sealing provisions but takes no position on whether the seal should remain under the 18 court’s discretionary authority.5 It also asks that its ex-parte motion for an extension of time to 19 consider whether to intervene remain under seal because it reveals information concerning the 20
21 1 ECF No. 1. 2 ECF No. 11. 22 3 ECF No. 13. 23 4 ECF No. 12. 5 ECF No. 13. 1 government’s investigation.6 Because I find that neither party has provided reasons sufficient to 2 maintain the seal on any filing, I deny these requests and unseal this case in its entirety. 3 Discussion 4 FCA complaints are initially filed under seal for “at least 60 days” to allow the 5 government time to determine whether it wishes to intervene and proceed with the action.7
6 “[T]here is nothing in the FCA suggesting that the initial seal was imposed to protect the identity 7 of the relator or that qui tam complaints in which the Government decides not to intervene 8 should be permanently sealed.”8 Indeed, the 60-day seal provision “was intended in main to 9 protect the Government’s interests” by allowing private actors to file civil suits without alerting 10 defendants to a pending federal criminal investigation before the government had a chance to 11 investigate.9 The FCA’s sealing provisions thus do not support permanently sealing this case to 12 protect Teagues’s anonymity. 13 Courts considering whether to maintain a seal on an FCA case after the government 14 decides not to intervene have determined that “the statute necessarily invests the court with the
15 authority to either maintain the filings under seal” and analyze the motion under the traditional 16 test for sealing judicial records.10 “The public has a ‘general right to inspect and copy public 17
18 6 Id. 7 31 U.S.C. § 3730(2). 19 8 U.S. v. Bon Secours Cottage Health Servs., 665 F. Supp. 2d 782, 784–85 (E.D. Mich. 2008); 20 see also, e.g., U.S. ex rel. Grover v. Related Cos., LP, 4 F. Supp. 3d 21, 27 (D.D.C. 2013); U.S. ex rel. Durham v. Prospect Waterproofing, Inc., 818 F. Supp. 2d 64, 67 (D.D.C. 2011) (“FCA 21 cases are brought with the expectation that the pleadings will eventually be unsealed.”). 9 State Farm Fire and Cas. Co. v. U.S. ex rel Rigsby, 137 S. Ct. 436, 443 (2016). 22 10 United States ex rel. Erickson v. Univ. of Wash. Physicians, 339 F. Supp. 2d 1124, 1126 (W.D. Wash. 2004); see also, e.g., U.S. ex rel. Brasher v. Pentec Health, Inc., 338 F. Supp. 3d 396, 401 23 (E.D. Penn. 2018); U.S. ex rel Campie v. Gilead Scis., Inc., 2014 WL 12929889, at *3–5 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 4, 2014); Grover, 4 F. Supp. 3d at 25–29. 1 records and documents including judicial records and documents.’”11 “Although the common 2 law right of access is not absolute, ‘[courts] start with a strong presumption in favor of access to 3 court records.’”12 “A party seeking to seal judicial records can overcome the strong presumption 4 of access by providing ‘sufficiently compelling reasons’ that override the public policies 5 favoring disclosure.”13 “When ruling on a motion to seal court records, the district court must
6 balance the competing interests of the public and the party seeking to seal judicial records.”14 7 Teagues’s counsel states “upon information and belief” that Teagues was previously 8 married to one of the individual defendants, that the defendant has a history of domestic abuse 9 and stalking, and Teagues fears further abuse from him if he learns of her participation in this 10 action.15 Teagues’s allegations, stated only upon information and belief and unsupported by an 11 affidavit or other material evidence,16 are insufficient to overcome the strong presumption in 12 favor of access to court records. I thus deny Teagues’s motion to maintain the seal on this case. 13 I also find that the government has not demonstrated compelling reasons to maintain the 14 seal on filings that it claims “discuss[] the content and extent of the investigation.”17 Courts,
15 under their discretionary authority, have maintained the seal on FCA filings that disclose 16 17 11 In re Midland Nat. Life Ins. Co. Annuity Sales Pracs. Litig., 686 F.3d 1115, 1119 (9th Cir. 18 2012) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commcns., Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978)). 12 Id. (quoting Foltz v. St. Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). 19 13 Id. (quoting Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1135). 20 14 Id. (citing Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1179 (9th Cir. 2006)). 21 15 ECF No. 12 at 3–4. 16 The only evidence Teagues attaches to support her motion is a printout of a Nevada 22 Department of Corrections record indicating that the defendant was convicted of attempted battery and domestic violence about 16 years ago. ECF No. 12 at 11. 23 17 ECF No. 13 at 3. The government also failed to file a separate motion seeking the relief it requests, as required by Local Rule IC 2-2(b). 1} “confidential investigative techniques” or “information [that] could jeopardize an ongoing 2||investigation.”!® I have reviewed the motion the government seeks to keep sealed and am satisfied that it does not reveal any sensitive information that would compromise any future All investigations if unsealed.!° Indeed, the motion merely regurgitates information contained in the complaint, which will not remain sealed.”° The only additional information the government 6]| provides is that it began its investigation and scheduled interviews of the plaintiff-relators.”! The 7|| government has not provided compelling reasons to maintain the secrecy of that information. 8 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Teagues’s motion to maintain seal [ECF No. 12] DENIED. The Clerk of Court is directed to UNSEAL this case. 10 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff-relators’ notice of voluntary dismissal [ECF No. 11] is GRANTED.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 United States of America, et al., Case No.: 2:20-cv-01840-JAD-NJK
4 Plaintiffs Order Granting Notice of Dismissal, 5 v. Denying Motion to Maintain Seal, and Closing Case 6 Glen Amador, et al., [ECF Nos. 11, 12] 7 Defendants 8 Plaintiff-relators brought this qui tam action on behalf of the United States, the state of 9 Nevada, and the state of California against defendants for allegedly fraudulent Medicare and 10 Medicaid claims under the Federal False Claims Act (FCA).1 The United States, Nevada, and 11 California (the government) have stated an intention not to intervene, so the plaintiff-relators 12 move to voluntarily dismiss their action.2 The government consents to the dismissal.3 I 13 therefore dismiss this case with prejudice as to the plaintiff-relators and without prejudice as to 14 the government plaintiffs. 15 Plaintiff-relator Charlita Teagues also moves to maintain the seal on this case to retain 16 her anonymity.4 The government opposes to the extent Teagues requests this seal under the 17 FCA’s sealing provisions but takes no position on whether the seal should remain under the 18 court’s discretionary authority.5 It also asks that its ex-parte motion for an extension of time to 19 consider whether to intervene remain under seal because it reveals information concerning the 20
21 1 ECF No. 1. 2 ECF No. 11. 22 3 ECF No. 13. 23 4 ECF No. 12. 5 ECF No. 13. 1 government’s investigation.6 Because I find that neither party has provided reasons sufficient to 2 maintain the seal on any filing, I deny these requests and unseal this case in its entirety. 3 Discussion 4 FCA complaints are initially filed under seal for “at least 60 days” to allow the 5 government time to determine whether it wishes to intervene and proceed with the action.7
6 “[T]here is nothing in the FCA suggesting that the initial seal was imposed to protect the identity 7 of the relator or that qui tam complaints in which the Government decides not to intervene 8 should be permanently sealed.”8 Indeed, the 60-day seal provision “was intended in main to 9 protect the Government’s interests” by allowing private actors to file civil suits without alerting 10 defendants to a pending federal criminal investigation before the government had a chance to 11 investigate.9 The FCA’s sealing provisions thus do not support permanently sealing this case to 12 protect Teagues’s anonymity. 13 Courts considering whether to maintain a seal on an FCA case after the government 14 decides not to intervene have determined that “the statute necessarily invests the court with the
15 authority to either maintain the filings under seal” and analyze the motion under the traditional 16 test for sealing judicial records.10 “The public has a ‘general right to inspect and copy public 17
18 6 Id. 7 31 U.S.C. § 3730(2). 19 8 U.S. v. Bon Secours Cottage Health Servs., 665 F. Supp. 2d 782, 784–85 (E.D. Mich. 2008); 20 see also, e.g., U.S. ex rel. Grover v. Related Cos., LP, 4 F. Supp. 3d 21, 27 (D.D.C. 2013); U.S. ex rel. Durham v. Prospect Waterproofing, Inc., 818 F. Supp. 2d 64, 67 (D.D.C. 2011) (“FCA 21 cases are brought with the expectation that the pleadings will eventually be unsealed.”). 9 State Farm Fire and Cas. Co. v. U.S. ex rel Rigsby, 137 S. Ct. 436, 443 (2016). 22 10 United States ex rel. Erickson v. Univ. of Wash. Physicians, 339 F. Supp. 2d 1124, 1126 (W.D. Wash. 2004); see also, e.g., U.S. ex rel. Brasher v. Pentec Health, Inc., 338 F. Supp. 3d 396, 401 23 (E.D. Penn. 2018); U.S. ex rel Campie v. Gilead Scis., Inc., 2014 WL 12929889, at *3–5 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 4, 2014); Grover, 4 F. Supp. 3d at 25–29. 1 records and documents including judicial records and documents.’”11 “Although the common 2 law right of access is not absolute, ‘[courts] start with a strong presumption in favor of access to 3 court records.’”12 “A party seeking to seal judicial records can overcome the strong presumption 4 of access by providing ‘sufficiently compelling reasons’ that override the public policies 5 favoring disclosure.”13 “When ruling on a motion to seal court records, the district court must
6 balance the competing interests of the public and the party seeking to seal judicial records.”14 7 Teagues’s counsel states “upon information and belief” that Teagues was previously 8 married to one of the individual defendants, that the defendant has a history of domestic abuse 9 and stalking, and Teagues fears further abuse from him if he learns of her participation in this 10 action.15 Teagues’s allegations, stated only upon information and belief and unsupported by an 11 affidavit or other material evidence,16 are insufficient to overcome the strong presumption in 12 favor of access to court records. I thus deny Teagues’s motion to maintain the seal on this case. 13 I also find that the government has not demonstrated compelling reasons to maintain the 14 seal on filings that it claims “discuss[] the content and extent of the investigation.”17 Courts,
15 under their discretionary authority, have maintained the seal on FCA filings that disclose 16 17 11 In re Midland Nat. Life Ins. Co. Annuity Sales Pracs. Litig., 686 F.3d 1115, 1119 (9th Cir. 18 2012) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commcns., Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978)). 12 Id. (quoting Foltz v. St. Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). 19 13 Id. (quoting Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1135). 20 14 Id. (citing Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1179 (9th Cir. 2006)). 21 15 ECF No. 12 at 3–4. 16 The only evidence Teagues attaches to support her motion is a printout of a Nevada 22 Department of Corrections record indicating that the defendant was convicted of attempted battery and domestic violence about 16 years ago. ECF No. 12 at 11. 23 17 ECF No. 13 at 3. The government also failed to file a separate motion seeking the relief it requests, as required by Local Rule IC 2-2(b). 1} “confidential investigative techniques” or “information [that] could jeopardize an ongoing 2||investigation.”!® I have reviewed the motion the government seeks to keep sealed and am satisfied that it does not reveal any sensitive information that would compromise any future All investigations if unsealed.!° Indeed, the motion merely regurgitates information contained in the complaint, which will not remain sealed.”° The only additional information the government 6]| provides is that it began its investigation and scheduled interviews of the plaintiff-relators.”! The 7|| government has not provided compelling reasons to maintain the secrecy of that information. 8 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Teagues’s motion to maintain seal [ECF No. 12] DENIED. The Clerk of Court is directed to UNSEAL this case. 10 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff-relators’ notice of voluntary dismissal [ECF No. 11] is GRANTED. This action is dismissed with prejudice as to relators Charlita Teagues, 12]| Sherry] Williams-Jones, and Dorothy Hayes and without prejudice as to the United States, the 13]| State of Nevada, and the State of California. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE THIS CASE. 15 J Sy , _ fe at 16 U.S. Dis dge Jenni Ga Pansy February.25, 2022 17 ig '8 U.S. by Dep’t of Defense v. CACA Intern. Inc., 885 F. Supp. 80, 83 (S.D.N.Y. 1995). 19 See, e.g., Erickson, 339 F. Supp. 2d at 1126-27 (denying motion to maintain seal on 19|| government documents because they “contain no information that could compromise a future investigation, such as explanations of specific techniques employed or specific references to Ongoing investigations”); U.S. ex rel Mikes v. Straus, 846 F. Supp. 21, 23 (S.D.N.Y. 1994) (denying motion to maintain seal, noting that the FCA “evinces no specific intent to permit or || deny disclosure of in camera material as the case proceeds” and that “the statute necessarily invests the court with authority to preserve secrecy of such items or make them available to the parties”). Compare ECF No. 7 at 3-4 (government’s motion to extend time) with ECF No. 1 (plaintiff- relators’ complaint). ECF No. 7 at 5.