Williams v. Lawrence Livermore National Security, LLC

Background

Peter Todd Williams, proceeding without a lawyer, asserted a retaliation claim under the False Claims Act against his former employer, Lawrence Livermore National Security, LLC (LLNS). Williams alleged that he had examined a colleague’s computational models, identified flaws and concealment in that work, and was later fired for exposing those problems. He alleged that he reasonably believed the conduct could affect LLNS’s requests for federal funding.

The order expressly treated Williams’s allegations as true only for purposes of discussing the motions and did not resolve disputed facts. The court explained that Williams had adequately alleged, under the liberal pleading standard, that he reasonably and in good faith believed his conduct was protected under the False Claims Act and that LLNS fired him because of that conduct. LLNS stated that it did not intend to move to dismiss the complaint.

Protective Order

LLNS requested a protective order governing discovery involving confidential, classified, and national-security-related information. Williams did not oppose most of the proposed terms, including the model protective order and additional response time, but objected to treating research information broadly as confidential and to a provision allowing witnesses to refuse questions about sensitive subject areas related to classification.

The court granted LLNS’s motion for a protective order in part and adopted a modified version of the disputed provisions. The order may cover confidential research information and sensitive information implicating national security, but LLNS must establish that particular research information is actually confidential and protected under Rule 26(c). Information LLNS has publicized or has not taken steps to keep confidential would not be protected.

The court also adopted a rule that a witness with access to classified information need not answer deposition questions that implicate classified information, concern nuclear weapons, or would violate the witness’s obligations under applicable statutes, regulations, or rules protecting classified information. Disputes about whether a witness improperly refused to answer may be raised through a motion to compel.

Motion to Strike

LLNS moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f) to strike five categories of allegations concerning nuclear weapons, the federal nuclear-weapons program, related government programs, evaluations of LLNS, and an exhibit. LLNS argued that the allegations were unnecessary, could prejudice the defendant, and could create conflicts with obligations concerning sensitive information. Williams opposed striking many of the allegations and argued that the connection between the work and nuclear weapons was relevant to his False Claims Act retaliation theory.

The court agreed that the challenged allegations were not necessary to state Williams’s claim, but noted that unnecessary allegations alone were not enough to justify striking them. The court found that allowing the allegations to remain could create a conflict between LLNS’s duty to answer the complaint and restrictions on commenting about certain sensitive subjects. It therefore granted the motion to strike as to all portions identified by LLNS and directed LLNS to answer as though those portions were not included.

The court clarified that striking allegations from the complaint did not exclude all evidence related to them from discovery or trial. The nature of the colleague’s work could still be relevant to the reasonableness of Williams’s belief that a False Claims Act violation had occurred and to whether exposing the alleged flaws contributed to his firing. Any discovery would remain subject to the protective order and later rulings on particular disputes.

Sealing Motions and Disposition

The court granted LLNS’s administrative motion to maintain under seal a nonpublic document attached to Williams’s opposition and a narrowly tailored redaction discussing that document. It denied Williams’s motion to file his case-management statement under seal and ordered the case-management statement and the original and amended complaints unsealed.

Judge Joseph C. Spero concluded that LLNS’s motion for a protective order was granted in part, LLNS’s motion to strike was granted, LLNS’s administrative sealing motion was granted, and Williams’s motion to file documents under seal was denied.