United States of America v. Bara Infoware, Inc.

Background

Simrat Randhawa, identified in the opinion as the relator, filed a notice asking to dismiss this qui tam action without prejudice to her rights or the rights of the United States. The United States consented to the dismissal under 31 U.S.C. § 3730(b)(1). Randhawa also asked that the complaint, summons, case scheduling order, notice of voluntary dismissal, anticipated dismissal order, and later filings be unsealed.

Chief Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero issued a report and recommendation stating that a court order was required because the action could be dismissed only with the written consent of the court and the Attorney General. He recommended granting dismissal without prejudice and partial unsealing. Because a magistrate judge lacked authority to dismiss the action without the consent of all parties, including non-appearing defendants, the matter was reassigned to a district judge.

Unsealing review

The court later proposed a broader unsealing plan and identified filings that would remain sealed. The deadline for objections was January 31, 2020. No objections to either the report and recommendation or the unsealing plan were filed. Because there was no objection, the court reviewed the recommendation for clear error and found none.

Ruling

Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong adopted the report and recommendation and granted Randhawa’s notice of dismissal and request for partial unsealing. The action was dismissed without prejudice to the rights of the relator or the United States. The Clerk was ordered to unseal the action and all filings except the specified filings at Docket Nos. 10 through 15, 17, and 18 through 19, which were to remain sealed. The order terminated the action and directed the Clerk to close the file.