FCA Ruling May Open Door to Redacting Defendants' Names

Litigation attorneys Meredith Auten, Jessica Sievert and Ashley Stuart published an article in Law360 about a federal district court decision allowing the redaction of physicians' names in an unsealed False Claims Act (FCA) qui tam action record. The ruling from a judge in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida not only reversed a U.S. magistrate judge's decision but also went against courts' historical approach to FCA litigation that makes it difficult for defendants to keep their identities hidden. The district judge's conclusion was premised on two grounds: 1) a distinction between the public interest in understanding the allegations in an FCA case and the public interest in knowing who specifically is accused, and 2) privacy interests of the defendants, whose patient trust and confidence, professional reputation, licensing and credentialing, and more risked harm through unsealing the file without redacting their names. Here, the judge determined, because the government declined to intervene and the relators filed a notice of voluntary dismissal with prejudice, it made the most sense to leave the names redacted.

In their article, Meredith, Jessica and Ashley underscore that U.S. and State of Florida ex rel. Hasan v. Health First Inc. represents a significant departure from the prevailing judicial approach to redaction requests in unsealed FCA qui tam actions. They review the factors supporting the court's decision, including the declination after a lengthy investigation and unanimous support from the parties, before going on to analyze how the ruling creates a new framework for future cases and sharing key takeaways for FCA practitioners, particularly in the healthcare industry.

READ: FCA Ruling May Open Door to Redacting Defendants' Names

The authors also published a Holland & Knight alert on the case.