United States Ex Rel. Durham v. Prospect Waterproofing, Inc.
818 F. Supp. 2d 64
D.D.C.2011Background
- Relator Durham filed a False Claims Act action on November 15, 2010 alleging Prospect falsified payrolls to submit fraudulent claims.
- The case was filed under seal to allow the United States to investigate the allegations.
- The United States declined to intervene, and Durham filed a Notice of Entry of Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice on August 17, 2011.
- The United States consented to dismissal but objected to keeping the case permanently sealed; it urged unsealing pleadings that do not reflect its investigative efforts.
- The Court ordered supplemental briefings on sealing, applying the Hubbard six-factor framework to decide whether to unseal.
- The Court held that the Complaint, Durham's Voluntary Dismissal, and the United States' Consent to Entry of Voluntary Dismissal should be unsealed, with all other filings remaining sealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Public access presumption in FCA sealings | Durham argues ongoing sealing is appropriate due to privacy and limited public interest. | United States argues for unsealing pleadings that do not reflect its investigation. | Strong presumption favors public access; factors favor unsealing |
| Effect of previous public access on sealing decision | Durham contends lack of prior public access supports sealing. | United States notes prior default under seal; not decisive for original access. | Neutral; not controlling |
| Objection to disclosure | Durham moved to seal pleadings, arguing for continued secrecy. | United States opposed permanent sealing and favored unsealing non-investigative pleadings. | Favors sealing on the basis of the objection |
| Strength of privacy interests | Durham asserts privacy interests in preserving identity and preventing retaliation. | Relator has only generalized privacy concerns; insufficient to override public interest. | Favors unsealing; generalized privacy interests are not strong enough |
| Prejudice to opposing parties | Unsealing could cause retaliation and workplace harm to Durham as an employee. | Risks are outweighed by the public interest in disclosure. | Favors unsealing; prejudice outweighed by public interest |
| Purpose of documents introduced during proceedings | Unsealing is unnecessary since case was dismissed; documents no longer central to litigation. | Pleadings could be revived in potential future litigation given dismissal without prejudice. | Favors unsealing; documents were filed to support potential future proceedings |
Key Cases Cited
- EEOC v. Nat'l Children's Ctr., 98 F.3d 1406 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (strong presumption of public access to judicial proceedings)
- Hubbard v. United States, 650 F.2d 293 (D.C. Cir. 1980) (six-factor framework for sealing decisions)
- Schweizer v. Oce, N.V., 577 F. Supp. 2d 169 (D.D.C. 2008) (generalized public access needs; factors weigh unsealing)
- Littlewood v. King Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 806 F. Supp. 2d 833 (D. Md. 2011) (T taxpayers' interest in FCA cases; unsealing granted)
- Friedman v. Sebelius, 672 F. Supp. 2d 54 (D.D.C. 2009) (privacy interests and public access in sealing analysis)