Opinion
20-cv-03510-JCS
05-12-2021
PETER TODD WILLIAMS, Plaintiff, v. LAWRENCE LIVERMORE NATIONAL SECURITY, LLC, et al., Defendants.
ORDER MAINTAINING SEAL
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY CLAIM SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED
JOSEPH C. SPERO CHIEF MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Peter Todd Williams, pro se, filed this action under the False Claims Act (“FCA”) against his former employer Lawyer Livermore National Security, LLC, among other defendants. The Court previously determined that it was unclear whether Williams sought to assert an FCA “violation” claim on behalf of the United States, which would require him to retain counsel, or only an FCA “retaliation” claim on his own behalf, which he could pursue pro se. Order to Serve the United States (dkt. 4). The Court ordered service on the United States so that it could elect whether to intervene as to the potential “violation” claim, id. and later granted an extension of time for the United States to make its decision, dkt. 11. The Court also invited the United States to “file a statement addressing whether any other government interest requires Williams's complaint—which concerns nuclear weapons research—to remain under seal.” Order to Serve the United States at 2.
The United States has now elected not to intervene, but citing a Department of Energy policy regarding potentially classified information in the public domain, “has no comment on the classification status or technical accuracy of any of the allegations in the complaint.” See dkt. 14 at 2. Despite declining to address whether any information in the complaint is classified, “the United States respectfully requests that the Court (1) maintain the seal over the complaint and (2) order the Plaintiff to file, within two weeks of the Court's Order, a redacted version of the complaint with Section VIII, Factual Background, Paragraphs 19-55, redacted, ” after which the United States will “seek an order unsealing the redacted version of the Complaint, as well as certain other papers filed in this action.” Id. Williams filed a response opposing that suggestion and seeking to unseal his complaint in the entirety, based on his assertion that he has never had access to classified information. See dkt. 15.
The Court declines to resolve these issues of redaction and sealing until the scope of the case has been clarified. In an abundance of caution, the docket will remain under seal in its entirety pending further order of the Court.
As noted previously, Williams cannot proceed without counsel as a relator for an FCA qui tam “violation” claim. Order to Serve the United States at 1 (citing Stoner v. Santa Clara Cty. Office of Educ., 502 F.3d 1116, 1127 (9th Cir. 2007)). Williams's complaint is ambiguous as to whether he intends to assert such a claim:
His complaint cites the provision of the statute defining a violation of its prohibition against false claims as the “pertinent part, ” and seeks treble damages, which are available only for a violation claim brought on behalf of the United States. See Compl. (dkt. 1) ¶¶ 18, 80; compare 31 U.S.C. § 3729(a)(1) (providing for treble damages for government losses) with 31 U.S.C. § 3730(h)(2) (providing for relief including “2 times the amount of back pay” on a retaliation claim). On the other hand, Williams asserts that Defendants acted “in violation of the antiretaliation provisions of the FCA, ” and the damages that he seeks to treble are his own losses due to unemployment rather than any harm to the United States. See Compl. ¶¶ 78, 80.Id. at 2.
Williams is therefore ORDERED, no later than June 9, 2021, to do one of the following: (1) appear through counsel; (2) file an amended complaint that clearly does not include a qui tam claim for violation of the FCA's substantive provisions (as opposed to a claim for retaliation, which Williams may pursue pro se); or (3) file a response to this order arguing why Williams should be permitted to proceed on his present complaint. If Williams takes no action by that date, or if his response is insufficient to allow him to proceed, the case will be reassigned to a United States district judge with a recommendation to dismiss Williams's complaint to the extent that it asserts a qui tam claim for violation of the FCA.
The parties need not address the issue of sealing further until the question of whether Williams can pursue the claim or claims he is asserting is resolved. Williams shall not serve his complaint on Defendants pending further order of the Court.
This order shall be filed under seal and remain under seal unless and until the case as a whole is unsealed. The Clerk is instructed to serve this order on Williams and AUSA Michelle Lo via email, and on Williams by mail.
IT IS SO ORDERED.