United States of America v. Parsons-Hietikko

Background

Devin English filed a sealed qui tam action under the False Claims Act, alleging that funding from the National Institutes of Health had been misappropriated. The United States later notified the court that it intended to intervene against Jeffrey T. Parsons-Hietikko and add Hunter College as a defendant, and that it had reached settlements with both.

English moved to voluntarily dismiss his claims against Chris Hietikko-Parsons, Mindful Designs, the Research Foundation of the City University of New York, Brian Mustanski, Jarret Thompson, Jarret Thompson Consulting, and Sylvie Naar. He also asked the court to publish only redacted versions of documents in the case, excluding the names and identifying information of Mustanski, Thompson, Jarret Thompson Consulting, and Naar. The requested redactions included parts of the complaint, the notices and settlement agreements, and the case caption.

Analysis

The court applied the Second Circuit’s three-part test for sealing or redacting judicial documents. It first determined whether the materials were judicial documents, then assessed the strength of the presumption of public access, and finally balanced that presumption against interests such as privacy, law-enforcement concerns, and judicial efficiency.

The court held that the complaint was plainly a judicial document because it was the foundation of the lawsuit. The fact that English sought voluntary dismissal and that the complaint had not been adjudicated did not change that status. The proposed redactions would conceal both the Four Defendants’ names and allegations about their conduct. The court found those allegations relevant to the public, including because they could shed light on the Government’s decision to pursue claims against some defendants but not others in a False Claims Act case.

English argued that redaction was needed to protect against professional retaliation because some defendants had influence over grant funding, collaborations, and conference invitations. The court concluded that possible professional harm was not enough to overcome public access. It also concluded that possible embarrassment to the Four Defendants did not outweigh the public interest in the judicial record. The court distinguished a case involving a nonpublic federal investigation, explaining that English had chosen to file this action while aware that it could later be unsealed.

Disposition

The court denied English’s request to redact the complaint. It denied as moot his request concerning the other documents and stated that the matter would be unsealed under a separate order.