May 52026

E.D. Pa. Rejects Indefinite Sealing of FCA Extension Materials, Emphasizing Narrow Purpose of Seal

Jaime L.M. Jones and Meredith Greene Jalali
,

A recent decision from the Eastern District of Pennsylvania provides an important procedural win for defendants and a reminder that the False Claims Act’s seal provision is not intended to provide indefinite confidentiality.  In United States ex rel. Compton v. HCR ManorCare, Inc., the court ordered the unsealing of close to 50 ex parte motions that the United States filed to extend the statutory 60-day seal period to close to ten years, while it investigated the complaints and decided whether to intervene.

The court grounded its decision in a narrow view of the purpose of the FCA’s sealing requirement.  Although the government argued that indefinite sealing was necessary to protect its general “investigatory processes,” the court explained that the purpose of the seal is to prevent the government’s specific investigation from being “prematurely revealed to the specific defendants being investigated.”  The court emphasized that “nothing in the FCA mandates indefinite sealing” and there is a presumption of public access to judicial records such as the government’s extension briefs.  To overcome that presumption and keep the briefs under seal, the government must articulate a specific injury that would result if the briefs were made public.

The court thus applied a balancing test to weigh the harm to the government of disclosure against the need of the defendant, ProMedica, for the extension briefs.  The court observed that large portions of the government’s extension briefs did not describe the government’s investigation at all, and to the extent any did, the briefs simply discussed “routine” investigatory techniques that other courts have found subject to disclosure, such as interviewing witnesses, as opposed to disclosing detailed information about the specifics of the instant investigation, such as the identities of the witnesses or the nature of their testimony.  The court was also unpersuaded by the government’s argument that unsealing the briefs would lead the government in future extension briefs “to be even-more circumspect about what it reveals to the Court in writing about the course of the government’s investigations and decision making.”  The court reasoned that other courts have ordered the unsealing of similar motions for extension and, despite those orders, the United States has continued to request extensions in other cases and provide sufficient detail to demonstrate good cause for those extensions.

Against the government’s limited showing of harm, the court credited ProMedica’s interest in accessing the information in the extension briefs, including to assess potential defenses tied to the considerable length of the seal period, the multiple, substantive amendments made to the complaints during that period, the substitution of one relator for another, and the timing of the government’s investigation in relation to ProMedica’s acquisition of HCR ManorCare, which resulted in ProMedica’s inclusion as a defendant.  The court also recognized a broader public interest in understanding the government’s investigative timeline, particularly given that it took the government nearly a decade to decide to intervene in this litigation.

Ultimately, the court ordered the unsealing of the extension briefs, but did permit the government to seek targeted redactions for any portions of the briefs that reflect specific investigative techniques.

This decision adds to a growing body of authority declining to maintain indefinite seals over extension briefs filed in FCA cases and underscores that the statute’s seal provision is a temporary tool to protect the government’s initial investigation, and not a basis for ongoing confidentiality.

A copy of the decision can be found here.

This post is as of the posting date stated above. Sidley Austin LLP assumes no duty to update this post or post about any subsequent developments having a bearing on this post.

Jaime L.M. Jones

Chicago

jaime.jones@sidley.com

Meredith Greene Jalali

Chicago

meredith.jalali@sidley.com

You might also like
DOJ Announces FOCUS Initiative to Work with Data Miners Filing Qui Tams

As we previously reported here, record numbers of cases are being filed by “whistleblowers” under the FCA—approximately 1,300 qui tam suits last year alone.  This morning, Brenna Jenny, the Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division, Commercial Litigation Branch, announced at a conference that much of the surge in qui tam complaints is being driven not by insiders, but by entities set up to mine publicly available government data sets.  That is putting pressure on DOJ’s Civil Fraud Section, tasked with investigating qui tam allegations.  In order to address the challenge, Jenny announced the Fraud Oversight through Careful Use of Statistics (FOCUS) initiative, which presents an opportunity for data miners to meet with the Civil Fraud Section to explain the reliability of their data. Though not a pre-filing requirement, data miners who choose to participate “should be prepared to explain what differentiates their approach, how they validate their findings, and why their methodology provides a reliable basis for identifying high-quality, actionable False Claims Act matters.”  DOJ’s announcement of the FOCUS initiative makes clear that “the Department will prioritize working with data miners that have demonstrated an investment in pre-filing diligence and commitment to analytical rigor, familiarity with program rules, and legally sufficient allegations.”  It will be interesting to see whether the Department increases its exercise of authority to dismiss qui tam suits brought by data miners that cannot so demonstrate.

DOJ Announces First FCA Settlement Resolving Title VII Discrimination Allegations

Last week, the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) announced a more than $17 million settlement with IBM to resolve allegations that the company violated the FCA by defying “anti-discrimination requirements as set forth in Title VII.”  This is the first settlement to emerge from the DOJ’s Civil Rights Fraud Initiative, on which we previously reported here and here.  Unveiled May 19, 2025, the Initiative aims to use the FCA to pursue claims against federal funding recipients that allegedly violate civil rights laws via “racist preferences, mandates . . . and activities”—including where those violations occurred in the context of companies operating diversity, equity, and inclusion programs.  Notably, as we reported here, the Deputy Assistant Attorney General of DOJ’s Commercial Litigation Branch, Brenna Jenny, used an address at the Federal Bar Association’s Qui Tam Conference last February to stress DOJ’s commitment to enforcement premised on such discrimination.

TX AG’s Office Continues Aggressive Enforcement Against Healthcare Entities Operating in Texas

In just the last week, the Texas Attorney General’s Office (“TX AG’s Office”) filed three actions against healthcare providers and entities, continuing an increasingly robust and aggressive enforcement regime that dates back to at least the beginning of 2025.