United States of America, ex rel. Verity Investigations, LLC v. Sturgeon Services International, Inc.

Opinion

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10

11 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ex rel. Case No. 1:24-cv-00927-CDB VERITY INVESTIGATIONS, LLC, 12 ORDER UNSEALING ALL FILINGS AND Plaintiff, UNSELAING THE CASE 13 v. Clerk of the Court to Randomly Assign 14 District Judge STURGEON SERVICES INTERNATONAL, 15 INC,

16 Defendant. 17 18 On August 9, 2024, Plaintiff/Relator Verity Investigations, LLC (“Verity”), on behalf of 19 itself and the United States of America (“government”), initiated this qui tam action with the 20 filing of a complaint against Sturgeon Services International, Inc. (“Defendant”). (Doc. 1). 21 Verity alleges violations of the False Claims Act (31 U.S.C. § 3729 et seq.). 22 Following three grants of the government’s ex parte applications to extend its time to elect 23 to intervene (Docs. 7, 11, 13), on December 18, 2025, Verity filed a notice of voluntary dismissal 24 pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i). (Doc. 14). Thereafter, at the Court’s direction to make 25 a filing indicating its consent or non-consent to dismissal, the government filed a notice of 26 consent to Verity’s voluntary dismissal. (Docs. 15-17). 27 In its notice, the government requests that Verity’s complaint, notice of dismissal, the 1 that “all other papers on file in this action remain under seal because in discussing the content 2 and extent of the United States’ investigation, such papers are provided by law to the Court alone 3 for the sole purpose of evaluating whether the seal and time for making an election to intervene 4 should be extended.” (Id. at 1-2). 5 In qui tam actions, courts consider “lifting the seal on the entire record to be 6 appropriate unless the Government shows that such disclosure would: (1) reveal confidential 7 investigative methods or techniques; (2) jeopardize an ongoing investigation; or (3) harm non- 8 parties.” U.S. ex rel. Lee v. Horizon West, Inc. No. C 00-2921 SBA, 2006 WL 305966, at *2 9 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 8, 2006) (citing cases) (emphasis in original). “[I]f the documents simply describe 10 routine or general investigative procedures, without implicating specific people or providing 11 substantive details, then the Government may not resist disclosure.” Id. 12 The sealing order in this case implicitly acknowledges that the seal would be lifted upon 13 expiration of the time for the government to elect or decline to intervene, absent good cause. 14 (Doc. 5). In its request for a continued, limited sealing of certain documents, the government 15 does not demonstrate that any documents presently under seal reveal confidential investigative 16 methods or techniques, or contain information that could jeopardize an ongoing investigation, or 17 contain information that could harm non-parties. As it stands, the Court has determined there are 18 three filings – government counsel’s declarations filed in support of its ex parte applications to 19 extend its time to elect or decline to intervene (Docs. 6, 9, 12-1) – that discuss in only general 20 terms the content and extent of the government’s investigation. Specifically, those documents 21 address generally the government’s use of discovery tools and agency coordination during its 22 investigation. But the documents do not identify sensitive investigative methods, or reveal 23 internal government or agency decision making or thought processes, or otherwise suggest on 24 their face that disclosure of the general contents would jeopardize an ongoing or future 25 investigation. 26 Accordingly, because there is no basis for the Court to maintain a limited seal, the Court 27 will direct that the matter be unsealed in its entirety. See United States ex rel. Relator LLC v. 1 | (declining to permit limited unsealing); United States ex rel. Blair v. SourceAmerica, Inc., No. 2 | 1:20-cv-01455-JLT-EPG, 2023 WL 4087635 (E.D. Cal. June 20, 2023) (same); United States ex 3 | rel. Medstar LLC vy. VJ’s Transp. Servs., Inc., No. 2:20-CV-1400-KJM-JDP, 2021 WL 1164723 4 | (E.D. Cal. Mar. 26, 2021) (same). Accord Wolffv. Citigroup, Inc., 221 F. Supp. 3d 1260, 1262- 5 | 63 (D. Col. 2016) (rejecting government’s request to maintain under seal its application for 6 | extension of time to intervene in gui tam action where application only addressed in general and 7 | “innocuous” terms the government’s investigation; noting “[n]othing here describes anything 8 | remotely sensitive”). 9 Conclusion and Order 10 For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the action and all docketed 11 | filings be UNSEALED. 12 The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to unseal all filings and unseal the case 13 The Clerk of the Court is FURTHER DIRECTED to randomly assign a U.S. district judge. 14 [T IS SO ORDERED. Dated: _ January 27, 2026 | Wr bY 16 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28