1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and Case No. 1:17-cv-01733-JLT-EPG STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ex rel. 12 MALINDA JACKSON, 13 Plaintiffs, ORDER UNSEALING CERTAIN FILINGS

ON DOCKET

14 v. (ECF Nos. 33, 34) 15 NORTHERN CALIFORNIA SCHOOL OF CONSTRUCTION, LLC, et al., 16 Defendants. 17

18 19 20 Plaintiff Malinda Jackson filed this qui tam action on December 22, 2017, raising, in part, 21 claims under the False Claims Act, the California False Claims Act, as well as state contract and 22 tort claims. (ECF No. 1). On October 23, 2018, the State of California declined to intervene. 23 (ECF No. 8). On December 13, 2021, the United States declined to intervene. (ECF No. 19). 24 On June 27, 2022, Plaintiff filed a request for dismissal of this case under Federal Rule of 25 Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i). (ECF No. 32). On June 27 and 28, the United States and the State 26 of California filed notices consenting to the dismissal. (ECF No. 33, 34). Each of these filings 27 also requests that certain documents be unsealed or remain unsealed—such as the complaint, 28 request for dismissal, and notices of consent to dismissal—and each requests that all other filings 1 remain under seal, because “in discussing the content and extent of the [the United States’ or 2 State of California’s] investigation, such papers are provided by law to the Court alone for the 3 sole purpose of evaluating whether the seal and time for making an election to intervene should 4 be extended.” (ECF No. 33, p. 2; ECF No. 34, p. 2). 5 Generally, there is a strong presumption in favor of access to court records, with the 6 “party seeking to seal a judicial record . . . bear[ing] the burden of overcoming this strong 7 presumption” by offering compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings. Kamakana v. 8 City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006). Compelling reasons that 9 outweigh the public’s interest can include “the use of records to gratify private spite, promote 10 public scandal, circulate libelous statements, or release trade secrets.” Id. at 1179. However, an 11 exception applies to the compelling-reasons standard when the court records at issue are attached 12 to non-dispositive motions. Id. In such cases, “[a] ‘good cause’ showing under [Federal Rule of 13 Civil Procedure] 26(c) will suffice.” Id. at 1180. “For good cause to exist, the party seeking 14 protection bears the burden of showing specific prejudice or harm will result” if the documents 15 are not sealed. Phillips ex rel. Ests. of Byrd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210–11 (9th 16 Cir. 2002) (discussing good cause in terms of rule 26(c)). 17 The Court find that, for all but some select documents specified in this order, neither 18 standard has been met. When this action was initially filed, the Court permitted the complaint and 19 subsequent filings to be sealed pursuant to 31 U.S.C. § 3730, which provides that complaints in 20 qui tam actions shall be sealed for at least sixty days while the United States decides whether to 21 intervene and may remain under seal if the United States is granted extensions to decide whether 22 to intervene. 31 U.S.C. § 3730(b)(2)-(3); (see ECF Nos. 3, 5). However, the day after the United 23 States declined to intervene, the Court lifted the seal as to the complaint and all future filings but 24 temporarily left sealed all filings predating the order. (ECF Nos. 19, 21). 25 Thus, the only filings that remain under seal are documents relating to the requests to seal, 26 requests for extensions of time to decide whether to intervene, notices regarding intervention, and 27 some standard court orders. (See ECF Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 28 19, 20). While some these filings discuss the content and extent of the United States’ and/or the 1 | State of California’s investigation, and were provided to the Court for the purpose of evaluating 2 | whether the seal and time for making an election to intervene should be extended, this alone does 3 | not establish compelling reasons are good cause to maintain these documents under seal. 4 Given that this action is being dismissed, there is no danger of Defendant learning about 5 || any pending investigation into its actions because there remains no pending action to investigate. 6 | And, to the extent that the United States and the State of California are concerned with 7 | prospective Defendants in unrelated cases learning about their investigation techniques, neither 8 | has cited any specific technique that warrants these documents remaining sealed. Moreover, the 9 | investigation methods discussed are the types of investigations that occur in most litigation, such 10 | as “interviewing third-party witnesses and collecting additional relevant documents and data as 11 | necessary.” (ECF No. 4-2, p. 3). Accordingly, the Court does not find grounds to seal all other 12 | documents as requested. 13 However, after reviewing the sealed documents, the Court concludes that there are 14 | grounds to keep the following filings under seal because they contain sensitive information 15 | related to the decision to intervene: ECF Nos. 6, 10, 12, 13, and 14. But the Court will not keep 16 | the other remaining documents under seal. 17 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall unseal (to the extent that they 18 | are not already unsealed) all filings (and accompanying attachments) and docket entries in this 19 | action EXCEPT that ECF Nos. 6, 10, 12, 13, and 14 (and accompanying attachments) 20 | SHALL REMAIN UNDER SEAL. The Clerk of Court is directed to mail a copy of this order to 21 | all counsel who have appeared on record: Katherine Boyd, Michael Macko, Lynn Ernce, John 22 | Edwards, and Brendan Ruddy. 23

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: _ July 1, 2022 [le ey — 26 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 27 28