Claris Law Legal Blogging Community

Editor: Mike Bothwell
Profession: Qui Tam Attorney

After the Government declined to intervene in United States ex rel. Arkfield v. Bleiberg, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 40131 (E.D. Mich. May 19, 2008), the case was unsealed so that the Relators could pursue the claims themselves, as is customary. The Relators, however, filed a motion to reseal the case so that they could present it to the criminal division of the United States Attorneys Office for possible criminal prosecution.

Although the Relators alleged that sealing was necessary to avoid the possible destruction or alteration of evidence, the Government did not agree and considered a seal to be contrary to the public's right of access to court records. The Court agreed with the Government, finding that a seal was not necessary where the Relators did not present any specific basis for their concerns of evidence destruction. Furthermore, the Relators had already expressed to the Court that they would not be pursuing the action on their own, and the Court was unwilling to grant a seal on behalf of the Government where any concern of evidence destruction would only be related to a possible criminal action, which at that time was non-existent, and the Government itself said that no seal was necessary.