A federal court in Pennsylvania (“the Court”) ordered the unsealing of nearly a decade’s worth of False Claims Act (“FCA”) filings, holding that the government failed to overcome the strong presumption of public access to judicial records.
In U.S. ex rel. Compton v. HCR ManorCare, Inc., No. 16-0851 (E.D. Pa. Apr. 17, 2026) (“Compton“), the Court rejected the government’s attempt to keep dozens of petitions confidential—petitions asking the Court to delay unsealing the case to the public. The Court concluded that the FCA’s seal provisions do not authorize indefinite secrecy once the government has decided whether to intervene. The decision underscores the increasing scrutiny courts are applying to lengthy FCA investigations conducted under seal.
Background
The FCA permits a relator’s complaint to remain under seal for at least 60 days while the government investigates and determines whether to intervene in a case. During that period, the government may seek additional time by filing motions and supporting materials in camera.
In Compton—which consolidated two similar cases—however, the seal periods extended well beyond the norm. The underlying complaints alleged that nursing-home operators and affiliated entities fraudulently billed federal health care programs for care that was either nonexistent or grossly substandard. While investigating the allegations, the government obtained repeated extensions, keeping the actions under seal for more than eight and nine years, respectively. Over the course of those investigations, the government filed nearly 50 ex parte motions seeking additional time to evaluate intervention. The accompanying briefs remained under seal throughout the proceedings.
After the government partially intervened and the actions were consolidated, one defendant moved to unseal the remaining sealed filings, including the government’s extension briefs. The government opposed the request, arguing that the FCA required continued sealing and that disclosure would harm governmental investigative interests.
The Court disagreed.
Court Rejects Indefinite Sealing of FCA Extension Briefs
The Court first rejected the government’s argument that FCA extension briefs are entitled to perpetual confidentiality. Although the FCA permits extension motions and supporting materials to be filed in camera during the investigative stage, nothing in the statute requires those materials to remain sealed indefinitely after the government has made its intervention decision.
The Court emphasized that the FCA’s seal provisions serve a narrow purpose: protecting ongoing investigations from premature disclosure. They do not create a permanent shield from public scrutiny.
Because the extension briefs were filed with the Court and resulted in informed judicial decisions granting additional seal periods, the Court concluded that they constituted judicial records subject to the common-law right of public access.
Generalized Harm Claims Fell Short
Having determined that the briefs were judicial records, the Court applied the common-law balancing test governing requests to maintain records under seal. Under that framework, the party seeking continued sealing must identify a clearly defined and serious injury that would result from disclosure.
The government argued that the briefs reflected confidential investigative processes and that disclosure could impede future FCA investigations. But the Court found those assertions too generalized and speculative. Instead, the Court observed that the briefs largely contained procedural updates and descriptions of routine investigative activity, including witness interviews, document review and interagency coordination. The materials did not disclose confidential witnesses, sensitive law-enforcement techniques or substantive investigative strategy.
By contrast, the Court found significant interests favoring disclosure. The defendants argued that the filings could assist in evaluating potential defenses, and the Court emphasized the public’s strong interest in understanding why the litigation remained under seal for nearly a decade. Given the extraordinary length of the seal periods, the Court concluded that the public’s interest in access carried substantial weight.
Ultimately, the Court held that the government’s asserted harms did not overcome the presumption of public access and it ordered the briefs unsealed while permitting the government to seek narrowly tailored redactions for genuinely sensitive information.
Practical Takeaways
- No Automatic Secrecy. FCA extension briefs do not remain sealed indefinitely simply because they were filed in camera during the government’s investigation. Once intervention decisions are made, courts may treat those materials as judicial records subject to public access.
- Generalized Harm Is Insufficient. The government must identify specific, concrete harms that would result from disclosure. Broad assertions about protecting investigative processes are unlikely to overcome the presumption of public access.
- Lengthy Seal Periods Invite Scrutiny. The longer a case remains under seal, the stronger the public interest in understanding the basis for continued secrecy and the more difficult it may become to justify keeping related filings sealed.
If you have questions or would like more information about this topic, please contact:
- Matt Schappa at (317) 429-3604 or mschappa@hallrender.com;
- Kennedy Bunch at (317) 977-1420 or kbunch@hallrender.com; or
- Your primary Hall Render contact.
Hall Render blog posts and articles are intended for informational purposes only. For ethical reasons, Hall Render attorneys cannot—outside of an attorney-client relationship—answer specific questions that would be legal advice.
