1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 UNITED STATES ex rel. ESTATE OF Case No. 23-cv-03950-LJC WILLIAM ARTEMUS, 8 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY 9 PRIOR FILINGS SHOULD NOT BE v. UNSEALED 10 JIM YAN LOUIE, et al., Re: Dkt. No. 12 11 Defendants.

12 13 In order to allow this False Claims Act case to proceed, the Court previously endorsed the 14 proposed order accompanying the United States’ decision to decline intervention, which called 15 unsealing all future filings but only two documents filed prior to the date of that order: Relator’s 16 Complaint and the United States’ Notice of Election to Decline Intervention. ECF No. 12 at 4. 17 The United States asserted, without citation to authority, that all other preexisting filings should 18 remain under seal “because in discussing the content and extent of the United States’ 19 investigation, such papers are provided by law to the Court alone for the sole purpose of 20 evaluating whether the seal and time for making an election to intervene should be extended.” Id. 21 at 2. 22 In order to overcome the public’s right of access to judicial proceedings, a party seeking to 23 seal documents only tangentially related to the merits of a case must generally show “good cause” 24 for sealing.1 See generally Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC,

, 1096–1102 25 (9th Cir. 2016); Kamakana v. City & Cty. of Honolulu,

, 1186 (9th Cir. 2006) 26 (recognizing that even where the “good cause” standard applies, a party seeking sealing must 27 1 overcome the presumption of public access); Civ. L-.R. 79-5. It is not facially apparent that any 2 || document previously filed in this case reveals confidential information about a government 3 || investigation that would cause any harm if disclosed. At least some such documents plainly do 4 || not include confidential government information, like Relator’s application to proceed in forma 5 || pauperis (ECF No. 2) and the Court’s order granting that application (ECF No. 7). 6 The United States is therefore ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE why all previous filings in 7 this case should not be unsealed. The United States shall file a response to this order no later than 8 February 26, 2024 either: (1) setting forth particularized reasons why good cause exists to seal 9 || each document the United States believes should remain under seal; or (2) citing legal authority 10 || for continued sealing without need for a factual showing of good cause. 11 || ITISSO ORDERED. 12 Dated: February 13, 2024

14 Ls, | arity J. CISMEROS ited States Magistrate Judge 16

18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28