Blair v. SourceAmerica, Inc. ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ex rel. Case No. 1:20-cv-01455-JLT-EPG TIMOTHY BLAIR, 12 Plaintiff, 13 ORDER DENYING THE UNITED STATES’ v. REQUEST TO MAINTAIN FILINGS UNDER 14 SEAL, DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO SOURCEAMERICA, INC., UNSEAL THE ENTIRE DOCKET 15 Defendant. (ECF No. 30) 16 17 Timothy Blair Jackson filed this qui tam action on October 14, 2020. (ECF No. 1). On 18 June 14, 2023, the United States filed a notice declining to intervene. (ECF No. 30). Within this 19 filing, the United States asks that certain filings be unsealed and that others remain sealed: 20 Finally, the Government requests that the relator’s Complaint, this Notice, and the 21 attached proposed Order be unsealed. The United States requests that all other papers on file in this action remain under seal because in discussing the content 22 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 23 making an election to intervene should be extended. 24 (ECF No. 30, p. 2). 25 Because the United States has provided no developed argument to seal any filing, the 26 Court will unseal the entire docket. 27 Generally, there is a strong presumption in favor of access to court records, with the 28 “party seeking to seal a judicial record . . . bear[ing] the burden of overcoming this strong 1 presumption” by offering compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings. Kamakana v. 2 City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006). Compelling reasons that 3 outweigh the public’s interest can include “the use of records to gratify private spite, promote 4 public scandal, circulate libelous statements, or release trade secrets.” Id. at 1179. However, an exception applies to the compelling-reasons standard when the court records at issue are attached 5 to non-dispositive motions. Id. In such cases, “[a] ‘good cause’ showing under [Federal Rule of 6 Civil Procedure] 26(c) will suffice.” Id. at 1180. “For good cause to exist, the party seeking 7 protection bears the burden of showing specific prejudice or harm will result” if the documents 8 are not sealed. Phillips ex rel. Ests. of Byrd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210–11 (9th 9 Cir. 2002) (discussing good cause in terms of Rule 26(c)). 10 When this action was initially filed, the Court permitted the complaint and subsequent 11 filings to be sealed pursuant to 31 U.S.C. § 3730, which provides that complaints in qui tam 12 actions shall be sealed for at least sixty days while the United States decides whether to intervene 13 and may remain under seal if the United States is granted extensions to decide whether to 14 intervene. 31 U.S.C. § 3730(b)(2)-(3); (see ECF No. 3). However, with the United States 15 declining to intervene, this provision no longer provides a basis to seal filings. 16 Moreover, while some of the relevant filings discuss the content and extent of the United 17 States’ investigation and were provided to the Court for the purpose of evaluating whether the 18 seal and time for making an election to intervene should be extended, this alone does not establish 19 compelling reasons or good cause to maintain these documents under seal. Notably, the records 20 discuss the United States’ investigation in such a general matter that it is difficult to see how 21 unsealing such material could result in harm. 22 Moreover, Timothy Blair is now seeking to dismiss this action, with the United States’ 23 consent. (ECF Nos. 31, 32). Because no party is pursuing this case, there is not danger of Defendant learning about any pending investigation into its actions. And, to the extent that the 24 United States is concerned with prospective Defendants in unrelated cases learning about their 25 investigation techniques, it has not cited any specific technique that warrants the filings remaining 26 sealed. Generally, the investigation methods discussed are the types of investigations that occur in 27 most litigation, such as interviewing witnesses and reviewing documents. 28 1 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED as follows: 2 1. The United States’ request to maintain most of the filings of record under seal (ECF No. 3 30) is denied. 4 2. The Clerk of Court is directed to unseal the entire docket. 5 3. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to serve a copy of this order by mail on 6 Assistant United States Attorney Emilia Morris (counsel for the United States) and Curtis 7 Isacke (counsel for Timothy Blair). 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. 9 io | Dated: _ June 16, 2023 [leo hey □ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28