U.S. v. RAPID CITY REGIONAL HOSPITAL

KAREN E. SCHREIER, United States District Judge.

The United States moved on December 30, 2002, to keep sealed all documents currently under seal in a qui tam action brought under the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. § 3729-3733. This court wrote a letter to the United States requesting authority to supped its motion to keep the documents sealed. The United States filed a memorandum in support of sealing the documents on January 16. 2003.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff-Relator Karen Johnson-Pochardt served as the director of the Cancer Care Institute (CCI) at Rapid City Regional Hospital (RCRH) from 1996 to 2001. Defendants Dr. Larry Ebbert and Oncology Associates (OA) provide oncology treatment and defendant Dakota West (DW) provides radiology treatment for cancer patients of RCRH. As a Relator Linder the False Claims Act, Johnson-Pochardt served the United States Attorney with a complaint and disclosure statement in March 2001. The Relator filed an amended complaint on October 5, 2001. The complaint alleged Put RCRH entered a prohibited financial relationship with OA, through which OA received substanlial medical retetTals in violation of federal law.

The government. conducted an investigation to determine whether or not it should intervene. The United States filed its first ex parte motion [or an extension of the time needed to make the decision recarding intervention on June 1, 2001. The court granted an extension. The government made ten subsequent motions For an extension of time to elect to intervene, filing its final motion [or extension on December 18, 2002. An extension was granted each time. Throughout these filings and extensions, the record remained sealed.

On December 18, 2002, the parties reported that they had reached a settlement. The government elected to intervene in the action the following day. At the request of the parties. the court unsealed the complaint, the amended complaint, the notice of intervention, the settlement agreements and all filings made after December 19, 2002. All other documents remained under seal.

DISCUSSION

The False Claims Act states that a private party filing suit on behalf of the government should file the complaint in camera. 31 U.S.C. § 3730 (b)(2). That complaint is to remain sealed for at least sixty days. RI. The court may extend the time under seal if the government demonstrates good cause. 31 U.S.C. § 3730 (b)(3). This time permits the government to conduct an investigation to determine whether or not to intervene in the lawsuit. 31 U.S.C. § 3730 (b)(4). Sealing the complaint prevents injury to the defendant's reputation and the government's investigationUnited States v. Baker Taylor. Inc., 955 F. Supp. 1188, (ND. Cal. 1997) (citing S. Rep. No, 345, 99th Cong., 2d Sess. 23-24 (1986)). Imposing a time limit and requiring a showing of good cause indicates that "Congress did not intend that the government should be allowed to prolong the period in which the file is sealed indefinitely." Id.

Although the statute is "centrally concerned with the scaling of the complaint itself," United States v. Morton Thiokol, 1987 WL 10232, *2 (D.D.C. 1987), it "evinces no specific intent to permit or deny disclosure of in camera material as a case proceeds." United States v. Straus, 846 F. Supp. 21, 23 (S.D.N.Y. 1994). Courts typically "recognize a general right to inspect and copy public records and documents, including judicial records and documents." Nixon v. Warner Comm., 435 U.S. 589, 597, 98 S.Ct. 1306, 1311. 55 L.Ed.2d 570 (1978). If, however, these documents disclose confidential investigative techniques, information that n-lay jeopardize an ongoing investigation, or matters that could injure non-parties, "courts have recognized the interest of the public in denying or deferring disclosure." Strauss, 846 F. Supp. at 23. Thus, courts should balance the gains From disclosure with any resulting harms. Morton Thiokol, 1987 WL 10232, at *3, United States v. McDonnell Douglas Corp., 902 F. Supp. 189, 191 (ED. Mo. 1995).

In United States v. CACI Int'l. Inc., the government wanted to keep documents, including motions to extend the sixty-day period, sealed throughout the pending action. 885 F. Supp. 80, 81 (S.D.N.Y. 1995). The government did not argue that the materials in the file interfered with an ongoing investigation or that disclosure would harm them. Id. at 82-83. The court denied the request:

The content of the court's files do not disclose any confidential investigative techniques, information which could jeopardize an ongoing investigation, or matters which could injure non-parties. the documents, save for the complaint, describe routine, general investigative procedures and do not implicate specific people or provide any substantive details. As a result, the court finds no ground for retaining the court's files under seal.

Id. at 83. See United States v. Int'l Business Mach. Corp., 992 F. Supp. 137 (N.D.N.Y. 1998) (court balanced the need for and the harm risked by disclosure and unsealed the memorandum opposing settlement because the document did not "contain substantive details regarding the government's methods of investigation").

In this case, the government moves to keep its requests for extensions of time sealed. The government argues that maintaining the seal "is in the best interest of justice" because it protects the government's inner workings with its investigators, client agencies, and contractors. Typically, the public has neither a right nor access to such information; thus. keeping it under seal would not undermine the policy of keeping records open.

This motion came after the underlying action settled and after the complaint, the settlement agreement, and documents filed thereafter were already made public. The majority of documents in the case have remained under seal for nearly two years. This undermines the strong public policy of making court files and proceedings open to the public. The documents were sealed during the crucial part of the government's investigation and the government's determination of whether to intervene in the action. This period fulfilled the statute's protective mandate and served both the government's and the parties' interests. Granting the government's motion would essentially extend the seal period indefinitely. which contradicts the legislative intent underlying the False Claims Act.

Furthermore, the government has not shown good cause to justify prolonging the seal. As in CACI Int'l, 885 F. Supp. at 81, lifting the seal on the documents will not interfere with an ongoing civil or criminal investigation since the case has already settled. The government itself acknowledges this. The government does not maintain that the documents contain any recognized privileged information that requires secrecy. Finally, disclosure does not harm the reputations of any parties or non-parties in this action, which the government also admits. See id. at 82-3.

The documents do not contain any specific information about the internal workings of the government's investigation. Similar to the documents in CACI Int'l, id. the documents here explain only general, routine matters of investigation. "[The documents] describe routine investigative procedures which anyone with rudimentary knowledge of investigative processes would assume would be utilized in the regular course of business." Straus. 846 F. Supp. at 23. See also Int'l Business Mach. Corp., 992 F. Supp. at 141. No one, other than the defendants and the Relator, is expressly mentioned by name. Client agencies and contractors are not discussed. Documents received from the defendants are mentioned only generally, and no details relating to content is revealed. Compare McDonnel Douglas. 902 F. Supp. at 192 (certain documents remained sealed while the action was pending because the documents contained substantive details about the government's investigation and disclosure could cause harm). The motions are brief, similar to one another, and cursory in their explanation of why an extension is needed. No filings indicate the process of the government's election to intervene; they relay the government's indecision rather than its motivation.

The court granted each of the government's requests for extensions. Clearly, extensions amounting to nearly two years exceeds the explicit sixty-day statutory time limit The file remained sealed during this entire time. Because the parties have now settled the case, the documents are superfluous. The statute specifically includes the seal to protect the investigation and the defendant's reputation. Neither interest is at issue any longer. Continuing to allow these documents to remain under seal, therefore, does not promote the interest of the public, is not in accord with the statutory language, and does not serve any justifiable purpose. The government has not shown good cause to keep the documents under seal. As a result, the court will lift the seal from the remaining documents.

Accordingly, it is hereby

ORDERED that the government's motion to seal selective documents (Docket 62) is denied. The Clerk is directed to unseal all documents in this case.