Ricks v. Menlo Worldwide Government Services, LLC
2:13-cv-00539
E.D. Cal.Jun 10, 2016Background
- Relators filed a qui tam False Claims Act suit under seal; the United States later notified the court it would intervene.
- After the United States’ intervention notice, the court ordered the complaint and the notice unsealed but temporarily sealed other prior docket filings (including the original complaint and several government requests for seal extensions) and directed parties to show cause why those should remain sealed.
- The United States moved to keep the government’s earlier requests to extend the seal under seal, arguing disclosure would reveal confidential investigative details, harm anti-fraud efforts, and create a practical impediment to describing investigation progress in future filings.
- The court conducted an in camera review of the extension-request filings to determine whether they disclosed investigatory techniques, endangered an ongoing investigation, or would harm non-parties.
- The court concluded the extension requests contained only general descriptions of routine investigative steps and did not reveal confidential techniques, specific people, or substantive attorney thought processes.
- The court denied the United States’ request to maintain the seal over the extension requests and lifted the temporary seal on the previously filed documents.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court should keep the United States’ seal-extension requests and other prior filings under seal after intervention | Disclosure would reveal confidential investigative methods, jeopardize investigations, and harm non-parties; FCA unsealing provision covers only the complaint | The court should unseal because the FCA permits the court to lift seals on docket materials and public access presumptively applies; the extension requests contain only routine, non-confidential descriptions | Denied the request; court unsealed the extension requests and lifted the temporary seal |
| Whether speculative harms suffice to justify continued sealing | General/speculative harm to anti-fraud efforts justifies secrecy | Speculative assertions are insufficient; must show concrete risk of revealing techniques, jeopardy, or non-party harm | Speculative harms were insufficient; unsealing ordered |
| Whether the FCA precludes unsealing documents other than the complaint | FCA’s silence about other filings means they remain sealed unless expressly unsealed | The court has authority to unseal other docket items after intervention and should favor public access | Court declined to treat FCA as limiting; exercised discretion to unseal |
| Whether in camera review supports withholding additional details to avoid a Catch-22 | Government may need secrecy to explain investigation progress in extensions without revealing sensitive details later | If government redacted to avoid disclosure, nothing harmful will be revealed upon unsealing; in camera review showed no sensitive details | Court found government had not disclosed sensitive information and any redaction means no Catch-22; unseal warranted |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. CACI Int’l Inc., 885 F. Supp. 80 (S.D.N.Y.) (denying continued sealing when extension requests did not reveal substantive investigatory details)
- U.S. ex rel. Mikes v. Straus, 846 F. Supp. 21 (S.D.N.Y.) (court has discretion to preserve secrecy of in camera material or make it available)
- U.S. ex rel. Erickson v. B.F. Goodrich, 339 F. Supp. 2d 1126 (N.D. Cal.) (FCA does not expressly restrict courts from unsealing non-complaint filings)
- U.S. ex rel. Costa v. Baker & Taylor, Inc., 955 F. Supp. 1188 (N.D. Cal.) (court must weigh presumption of public access when assessing seal requests)