Free Response to Cross Motion [Dispositive] - District Court of Federal Claims - federal

Case 1:05-cv-00999-MMS

Document 24-10

Filed 06/12/2006

Page 1 of 15

Exhibit P

Case 1:05-cv-00999-MMS

Document 24-10

Filed 06/12/2006

Page 2 of 15

TE[E UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DIS_CT OF TEXAS DALLAS .TOHlsTDOE 1 AND .TO_" DOE 2, DIVISION )

)
P aintiffs,
v. KPMG LLP Defendant, STATES OF AMERICA,

)

)
) C,A. No. 3:03-CV-2036-H

)
)

)
)

)
)

)
htmwenor-Defendant. INTERVENOR-DEIq_NDANT'S TO PLAINTIFFS _ EMERGE, N_ ) MEMORANDUM MOTION TO ALTER IN OPPOSITION QR, AMEND JUDGMENT

Iss_ s
1.

PRF..SErC D
of information that

Cong_mss has enacted a statute to protact*.h, onfidontiality

taxpayers and others provide¢o theInternal Revenue Service,Thai statul_ appH_ only ¢o information producedto or gathered theIILS, utnotto other by b fed_al agencies to courts, or The plaintiffs seek to prevent the public from learning thv contents ofdocuments ttm, thoy and K.PMG

filed under sealinthiscase.Does thetaxconfidentiality s_tulerequire theCourt to maintainthoso documents under seal?
.

Long standing

ommon

law and First Amendment A patty seeking

law recognize

a compelling must

interest

in providing public access to court records, int_

to seal court records

·show a compellingcounterv_g compelling intezesL

and present nanvwly-taflored a r_nedy to meet that a compelling inter,st in pr_enting the Litigating

Havo the plaintiffs demonstrated their idenriliea, including

public ii:om accessing

the afl_da_ts ffmy flied in order to justify

the case pseudonymously,

and to prove their case in chief?.

04/13/2004 Case

13:57 FAX 20251488B8 1:05-cv-00999-MMS

TA×CTSEASTERN Document 24-10 Filed 06/12/2006

Page 3 of 15_003/015

._6__S.,PROCEDURAL In a Memorandum Opinicat and Order eate_d

POSTURE April I2, 2004, the court granted KI_MG's the vast

and the United States" motions for stnnmaxy judgment. The Court held- consistent _th
P

weight of opinion - that taxpayers who claim tax benefits on _ed tax retur_ prevent the ]RS from learning who they are, especially fi_ra the accounting

are not entitled to firm that prepared thehof the t_.ord that had

tax returns. In its Order the Court also directed the Clerk to unseal po_ons previously been sealed. Those previously sealed po_ons oftbe two plaintiffs, for summaryj_l_ent. According Exh_it Service. to the plaintiffs, none of the _uformafion comained/11 and a voluminous

of the record include the Declarations

exhibit (i_xhiblt E) that K.PMG flied to suI_Ort its motion

their Declarations,

or in

E to KPMG's motion In fact_ the plaintiffs

for summary judgment, fil_

had been provided to the [utcrnal Revenue the IRS' fi_m obtaining that

this action in order to In-event

information.

The plaintiffs have moved to stay tiffs cove's that motion.

order pending appe._,

and K.PMG and copies of all

be United States have oppos_I three documents.

The Umted State, s has already obtained

L

THEn_O_T_ON NOT PROTgC'f_
Congress ¢nacted

Tn_g __ WISH TO gJg_F SEC_T IS BY Tmg TAX ¢ONnI___T_ ST_
§6103 to protect the ¢onfid_afiality _ax laws. Thus, Congrvss ofinfonna_on provided that the IR_S

26 U.S,C,

gathers in its role as _Lf'orce_ of the nation's

that "tax retur_

and rvtuminformationshall bo confidentiaL" and "no offio_ or ¢mployve of the United States"

-2-

Case 1:05-cv-00999-MMS

Document 24-10

Filed 06/12/2006

Page 4 of 15

may disclose it, except _. accordance with Title 26. zAs such, that sta_te limits the government's authority to disclose the tax information that the IRS collects. R

In order to undo:stand and ai_ly the general prohibition on dJsclosur¢of tax information, is essential to know wh_ information the statute does and does not cover.

The genez-al prohfbifion Those terms

and th_ excop_ons are defined

sll flow from the dcfim'tiom of"retums" ) and (2), respectively,

_nd '%turn i_'orma_on."

in §§6103(b)(1

to include just about every _e

of tax re_ma that

isfiled with the IRS, and every piece of in£ormation that the IRS gathers or maintains with respect to a civil or criminal liability under Title 26. But the cornerstone of that definition to tall ithin§6103, the information w or coU_ted by" the IRS. As the Fif_ must be, "received Circuit hasheld, is that, in order

by, recorded by, propare,d by, furnished to

The plain languageof the statute revealsthat "return h_ormafion"
must be h'fformation which has somehow passed through, is direotly or generated by the ]RS .... In sum, section 6103 requires that the somce of thed_sclosed nformation i mus_ have been theIRS in order for ther_ to be a violation ofthe g_eral pmMbition against

the disclosure of returninf'ormation._
Applying the law in this circuit, information that originated wi_h the plaintiffs, and never passed

throughthegovernment, not °'return is information,,'and doesnot enjoythe protectionof §6103.
In these cases, the courtshave consistently held that §6103 does not prot_-tthe
confidentialRy oftax informsfion that was ndther ga_hored nor

r_v_aled theIRa. Thus.in by

the FiRh Circuh held that an agorot of a federal grand jury who had obtained information about the plaintiff's disclosed income pms_ant to a grand jury subpoeag to the plaintiff's employer. did not v_iolate §6103 when he case, the

that information

In perhaps the e.ar_cst deoided Service

Ninth Circuit held that agents of the Naval Inve_gative

did not violate §6103 when they

126 U.S.C. §6103(a), zB_..a_nv. United States, 135 F.3d 338, 342 (54 Cir. !998) (cJ*_afions omitted). 3

Case 04/13/2004

1:05-cv-00999-MMS 13:57 FAX 2025146866

Document 24-10 Filed 06/12/2006 TA×CTSE_STERN

Page 5 of 15_005/015

_sclosed

a retained copy of a tax r_am that they bad seiz_ from the pla_tiffwl-dl¢

searching his

bunk, obsez_g that"there isno indication ¢ith¢rhelanguageof section in t 6103 or its legislative history that Congress iut_ded to enact a general proMbition against pubEc disclosure of tax

information."3 Because the information they disclosed oameRmn the taxpayer, ndnot fromthe a
IRS, it did not constimte"r_ infonn_on" t=der the definition in §6103(bX2). h yet _oth_

case, the U.S. District Corot for the Dist_ct of Colmnbia refused to enjoin the Depmtme_t of Justice rom disclosingnformation f i abouttheplaintiEstaxesthat ithad obtainedfrom third-pazW wilnesses and from theplaintiff duringthediscovery phase of a taxlawsuit. 4 Here the plaintiffs seek to maintain support oftheir motion to litigate this c_ under se_ their identities, the d_Iarations psendonymously, and a voluminous they filed in

set of docments

that KPMGfiledin support ofits crossmotionforsummaryjudgment,None of this information
originated information. with the IRS, or oven with the govsrmnent. As such, they do not _ By definition, these are not returns or r¢turn on disclosure in §6103(a). access to from

wiflxin the geneald prohibition

The plaintiffs have not demonstrated them.

any statutory basis to keq_ the public

fi'om having this information

Therefore, the Court should reject their ¢l_dm that § 6103 prot_ts

public diselosan'eJ

3_v,

United States,

831 F.2d 893,896

(9 '_ Cir. 1987), cer[. denied, 485 U.S. I033

(198S).
"Churoh Uniyerssl&Triumnhant v. United States, 1995 WL 271578 (D.D.C. 1995). Ryan v. United States, 74 F.3d 1161, 1163 (1 ! _ Cir. 1996); Thomas v. United States, 890 F,2d 18, 21 (7 s' Cir. 1989). SAlthoughnot relevant_'_, h ¢hsro isone particular exception §6103 tha_ in would clearly permitthe public disclosure fr_ o and return information infixenter era lawsuitlike this r one. Section 6103(hX4XA) authorizes heUnitedStates disclosem_ t to _ mid mmm information in a judicial proceeding pertaining to tax administradon, hore the taxpayer is a party m the w precepting. _d_d, this statute enables the government is able to litigate all manner oft= casesincluding taxrefundstats, summons enforcementcases, and crimin_fl taxprosecutions inpublic. -4-

Case 1:05-cv-00999-MMS

Document 24-10

Filed 06/12/2006

Page 6 of 15

THE PUBLIC'S OIF!'WEIGHS

INTEREST

IN OPEN ,HYDICIAL

PROCEF._INGS THEIR_O_YMIT_Y interests in recently of the

THE PLAINTIFFS'

II_EREST

IN PRESERVING

The cou.r_ have long recognized m_tah_g

sh'ong common

law and First A.,nendment

_pen an court system, and open access to judicial records.

The Fourth C_uit discussion

summed up this history in an unpublished issue:

opinion, notable for its comprehensive

We recognize thelong-estabfished common law fight of accesstojudicialecordsreed incourt._ r _ _ll._9..,ba_If..@_ _A_tT_!R_Lfoy_a_S_r_h Warrant. 923 F.2d 324, 326 (4[h CiT.), c_'t, denied. 500 U.S. 944 (1991); Stone v. UniversiWof MRrylan_ _edical System CorD..855 F.2d 178,180 (4u_Cir.1988); R_d y. New yorker Magazine. Inc.. 846 F.2d 249, 253 (4th Cir. 19_8). It isa common law righ_ thathasbeen recognized the b_pr_ne by Com_. See Nixon v.. Warn_ Communic_ons, Inc., 35 U.S. 589, 4 597 (1978)("It iscle,_r [hecourts _niscounh7 _ogniz_ a that of general zight to_nspect and copy publicr_ozds and _nts, inc]uding_udici_l r_cordsand documents.")(footnotesmilt_l). o Courtshave also_ognized that when r._s_involvemattersof pm'ricularly public_ntcrest, such asmisspentgovernment funds, the tailor,ale forpublicaccessis even greater. _ _ Smith y. United States District_.ur_ C forSouthernDisL, 956 F.2d 647, 650 (7_ Cir.1992) (appropriateness making co__x_ of _lesacee.ss_les i ac_ma_ wh_ gove_nnent is a par_y)(citing YrC v. StandRrd Fin_mcial ana_a_at M Coro_ 830 F.2d 404,410 (Is_ Cir. 1987); United States v.Beckha_n,789 F.2d _01,413 (6thCir.1986) (a district courtmust setforth "substaniial reasons"fordonyi_ t_ cour_ materials, and "when theconduct of public officials is at issue_ thepublic's interest intheopgmtion ofgove_ument adds weight in the balancetoward allowing permission tocopyjud_cial r_:ozds. (citingm't_dStates '_) U v. "ziden648 F.2d g1#, 822 (3d C_r.1981)). 6 Thus, the Court must bcg_n its analysisith the k_7 cons_d_tion that w th_ prosump_on and intex_t isa strong

_n maint_dn_ng open accessto thecourt's r_ords. There is no re_sonat

6Und_ Seal v. Und_Se-_°27 F.3d 564(table) Cir. 1994), copy ofwhichis attached (4th a · to this memorandum°
-5-

.

04/13/2004

Case 1:05-cv-00999-MMS 13:58 FAX 20251BBB6

Document 24-10 TAXCTSEASTERN Filed 06/12/2006

Page 7 of 15_00?I015

all why the public is not entitled to know who filed any giv_ why they filed it The now-unseele_i Moreover, the subject declarations

this Iawsuit,

including

this one, and else,.

provide that information,

and very li_e

of abusive tax shelters,

and the IRS's ability to enforce the tax laws again_ these days - ov_ more so as

people who participate in the, n, is v_j we approach Thumiay's

much in the public spotlight

tax filing deadline.

The public clearly has an interest

in learning of case_

where tax shelter participants seek to prevent The plaintiffs

the IRS from learning th_*_ridentifies. in Exhibit E is th_q.r very personal, private

claim that much of the information

financial hlformation, thatthe government and

shouldhave no intor_tinmaking that information

availableo thepublicatlarge. t That might be trueas a grncralproposition. ut thefa_t B remains that taxpayers who choose to litigate their taxliabilities against the government must often place justthis typeof personal financial information inthecourt's files, aspart of making their case in court.Ind_1, taxcasesarenotruufinelyried s_r_ t in nor m-ethefil_s intaxcasesroutinely

sealed. Nor shouldthesefilese sealed, ithoutsome compcUiug reason. b w He._o there may be good mason nottoopen Exhibit topublicscrutiny-atleast E not now. The plaintiffs didnot offer theexhibit,o theycannotbe saidto have assum_l therisk s thatthey would lose.Mor_v_', it ten be m'gu_lp_asively thatKPMG did nothave to file xhibR B in E

orderto win thecase, and that thecourtdidnot have torely upon theinformation contain_ in Exhibit todecidethecase. Certainly, E theUnited States didno_r_lyupon theinformation in ExhibR E to argue its motion. If the Court were to determine that the plaintiffs' interes_ in the

privacy of the haformafion centred

inExhibitE our, eighsthepublic's ernst v in, _uopen judicial

proceedings, hem isample ground tosuppor_a decision msin_dn l_xl_b_t under seal. t to E Thus there is no basis whatsoever identities, or their motives to continue to shield from public view the plaintiffs' Exhibit

for filing this lawsuit, as they articulated in the_ declarations.

-6-

;

wl

,al_vw Case

,o._e r_A .LVLDl_eebb 1:05-cv-00999-MMS

DocumentI_UI_EASIEHN 24-10

Filed 06/12/2006

Page 8 of 15 _] 008/015

i

OF COUNSEL: JANE J. BOYLE
United States Attorney

__.,

_

Rule 12, Misc. Order No. 61, _.S.D.C,
-7-

N/), Tea,) (Feb. 21, 2003)°

Case 1:05-cv-00999-MMS 04/13/2004 13:58 FAX 2025146886

Document 24-10 Filed 06/12/2006 TA×CT_EASTERH
_,,..

Page 9 of 15 _009/015

27 F.3d564_able)
22 Media L. Rep. 1922 Unpublished Disposition

(Cite as: z7 F3d s_t,
R

l_

wL _S39_ (4th Ctr_L))) OPINION.

HOTICE: THIS ISAN _UBLIb'_ED

(The Court'sd_ision is rcf_ in a "Table of De_iom WithoutReport_ Opim'ous" opem_g in _ theFederal ,,eporte_. P UseFI CFA4 Pule :36for rules gegtmiingthe =_tlon ofunpubllshed oplm'o_.) UnitedStat¢_ Court ofAppeals, ern-&Circ_. F
UNDER SEAL, Plsindf_-AFpelMes,
v,

k_0o_e _ penmuent seal on a qu_tam complaintflle_ _ the _du_ Chdms Act, 3t U.S.C § 3730(b), ·]Ieglng fraud and f_hc claimsagdn= = goveramcm =¢mmetor. "f_ m_l, riyi_ suit im bern r_r,l_ betw_m the Unlt¢_lS_tes amlthe contractor,with tile latter paying $300,000 to the govermmm_. The eo_ has moved to seal the on_lalm m effort to prevent the disclosure of the identity of the qu__m relator.
"f'_ qui tam action was fded in April of 1992. h al|eged tim, the mam_facturer sold to the federal govm_tm_t compuim" equiprm_ that was other than n_, in violation of its ccmaacts with the Generd Servioes Admiaiscmdo_. The person who brought the sui_ ht_l been an in-house attorneyfor the rammfacia_, befoxe_ Ms qui tam on_laint. Several related s'ait_ arose out of and preceded fire qui tara ac6on, including a suit for wrong_] tmmination by the former employee and a suit brough¢ by the _ctur_ to enjoinhim from reveaIing privileged _n_nnafion. The litigation b_w¢¢n the two privat_ pm'_ w=s conducted under seal, both in the disu_t co_ and in this Co_t After the qu_ tam action w=s sealed, the Unit_ State, applied tohave the seal lifted for most of the district court record m the qu_ ram case. The rrmm_ has filed w_th the district court a Motion to Maintain Confidential Inforn_t_on Undo" Seal and a Mo_o_ to Dismis_ or in the A_term_ve for Summmy _udgn_mt, m'gumg thag the fotm_ employ_ is not a proper relator and that he may not, th=et'ore, x_:over _ny portiere of the settlemeat amooP.t. [_,P] The U_ted States opposed the motion for a _m seal. contendi_ tha_ the dis_dct court mcon_ is subject to a cor_on law right of ImbEc acc_s, aad tlmt i_ should therefore be avsi_ble to th_ public. During th_ course of _ below, th_ msnufimtm_ a_cd to public _sclos_e of the se_ot ayeem_t, and even the govemmenfs isstma_ of s press rele_ shout tim case. It objectmi, hewers, to *my disclosm¢ of the name, ideati_y, mad posi_m of the _elstoro On $_m_ry 2i, 1994 tlm diswict court issued the ruliag on appe_ h_. The cour_ denied the mamd'_':_'efs motion seeking to keep the qul ,.am

UN'D_

SEAL, Defe_la_-Appeilant No. 94.117I.

Ar_a
D_ided

Apn3 t4, t994.
J_ 27, 1994.

AppeatI from the United Scares Dimzlc¢ Ctm_ for tim

£=t_

D_

of Virginia, st Alexaadr_
Judge. (CA.92.475.A)

T.S.

Ellb I_ Dis_¢t

Argued: James Severson, McCu_chen,Doyle, Brown & Enersen,San Fr,mcisco, CA. On bflef! Stepl_ W. l_obimon, McGuire, Woods, Ba_e & Booth, Washington, DC, for App_ila_
Argued: Douglas Nell L¢_=', Civil Division, Unilzd States Depmtment of Justice, W_ _; John Michael Bx_deho_ Ch_Ison & Bredehe_ P.C. Fah'fax, VA. On br_of: Frank W. Hung_ A_L_aut Atton_y C-ener& Helen F_hey, Uniu_i Sta_._ Attorney, Ch_ IXvision, Unit0d Stares De_snmem of Justice, Washington, IX:; E_ C. Brede_i% Ch_lstm & Bredeho_ P,C., Fah-f'_ VA, for Appellee. E.D,Va.

A_qP,MED.
Before MUR.NAGELA_ and N'IEM_ Circuit

Judges, md RESTANI, fudge, Umted S_es Co_ of
Imernafional Trade, si_ng by de,si_on.

OPINION
PER _AM: *'1Thequestion inthe instant_ is whether the districtcourt acted ithin disca_fionm x_using w i_ to

Copr. © W_si 2004 No Claim toOrig. U.S. Govt. Works

04/13/2004 Case

13;58 FAX 2025148888 1:05-cv-00999-MMS

TAXCTSEASTERN Document 24-10 Filed 06/12/2006
"j

_010/015 Page 10 of 15

27 K3d 564 (Table) (C_ =:_ F3a S¢_, _

P=Ze2 WL 283977,*-1 (4th Cir,OrLB)

¢ompla_ under seti. T_ dis_ corot stayed tl_ immediateeffect of its o_ _o tlmt the could seek relief tbxough_1. The district judge explained in a hearing on the motions thathe did not find coupeHiug the ltim tl_ a _ seal was required to proU_ the manufactm'_r from possible harm if the fact that the qul tam ,eomplsint had been _led by one of the compsny'saUomeys was disclosed. district coups Ord_ lxeeluded the govc_men_

public _cor&

and docmne_, includingjudicial

_r_

thepend_:y o_t_ *ppe_ _

publicly disclosing the complaint in d_ matteT, the identity o£the putative relatormid the fo_ _|oyment relafionsl_p that _ betwee_ [the mumfscturer] and _1_putative relate. But stay does not preclude the gev_t _om publicly m:moun¢in8 settlement of t_ qui tam the a_on and disclosing the settl_ ag_e_ut, provided thatthe infonaa_ion co_-_ed by the s_y h not disclosed. *_ T_e n_u_c_ b_s _ppe_led, e_entiany
ClaiI_ that the l_'ela_n t]_t the _or _s

Courts have _ _ th_ when case_ involve nuttten of par6culsxly pubUc h3tere_ such misspent g_:_e_nnent fimds_the ra_io_le for public access is even grater. See, e._., Sm_ v. Uni_d Sta_ D_c_ _our_ for,.qout_arn 956 F.2d DLr_,, 647, 650 (7th Cir.1992) (appm_g Of tmt_d_g cour_ files _tcc._s._oleis acc_mar_d in cases where the go_ is± party) (cifi_ FT'C v. Standard Financial Manag_en_ Corp., 830 F.2d 404, 410 (1_ Ck.1987)); Un_edS_a_s v. B_Mmm, 789 F.2d 401,413(6th Ci_.1986) (a dis_ct court ustse_ m forth "subsOiled rt_sons" for denying rrquests for access to cour_ n'_ter_Is, and "whe_theconduct of public offiCialSiS at _sue, the pub_c's interest h'_

op_ra_ion go_mm_ of

_k_s v_i_b_m the bsl_ce

toward allowing pen'n_ion m copy judicial records,') (cit_g United States z Crid_ 648 F.2d 814, 822 (3d c_._98D). TI_zea_e__fio_s m the s_o_ presumption of public_ccess. Rushford, 846 F_.d at 253 ("p_umpfic_ ofaccess, however,snbe relz_te_ ff c oun_'_ailing int_r_s_ outweighthepubE¢ _n_r_sts in _.cess"). However, party eeking ov_com_ zhe s to the presumption ofpublic accessearsthe burden % of showi_ som_ significant i_est z_ outweighs the _rlon." I_ (dta_ionon,tied). h hasfirst argued thatthecomplaintshoulde been b sea.l[_-_] order to F_otee_ a_toraey/clie_ priw'_eges. m
The _ cont_i_ed in the comp]_i._ is Iitfle

formerly an in-house cmmseI at the _y would cause i_embaxrassment. Itals_I_ _th_the omplatut conta_r_ pnw'lege_ _or_y-di_ _nformation,since its allegations are d_vcd fi_m information the employee learned _3e he was inhouse counsel. Add_ol_]Iy, the _turer has claimed that ff the seal is n_ imposed o_ corral-at, the sezl_ ir_os_ m the prior cases b_ the two pr_vazeE6gmts (the n_'_c_t_r the ex'stwhfle employee) win be un_ Finally, fl hasbeenc_ tt_t the govermnent has shown _ _u_cient _ to suppo_ _ desire to liR _m stay. We r_ew the district coups dedsi_ not to o_der Ix_man_ s_d of the comp_ _ s_ _b_e-o_d_sc_e_ons_m&r& .lames _. Jacobso_ 6 F.3d 233,

diffese_

from that c_d

m the se_ement

We recognize the ]o_-est_bl_l_ co_ l_w right of access to judicial reco_& _1_ m court. See, e.g., In re _pOi_c_on and A_k_t for a Search Warfare, 923 F.2d 324, 326 (4_ C_r.), ¢e7_. deni_ 500 U.S. 944 (1991); Stone v. University of _wy_nd Medlcal System Corp., 855 F.2d 178, 180 (4_ CirJ988); Rushford ¢. New Yorker Magoz_ne., [_¢., g46 F.2d 249, 253 (4th Cir.1988). It _ s ¢omnx_ law right that has been reeogx_:d by the Supreme Cour_ See Artron v. Warner Communh:a_ons, Inc., 435 U.S, 589, 597 (1978) ("R is cIe_ _lm_ _I_ courts o£ this

__) sold to the Governmentusedin_ead ofnew soods, b)sold _ tothe Gavenmm_s for full pri_ thes_ goods i_ soldto its omm=rc_l custorr_ m _t remanufaeun'ed_gr_m for _ 30% discount-are contained m bo_ the _nph_nt and settl_ a_, R_th_r, is _ r_lat_s i¢ idexeity =ndhisfom_ _le _ in.house counselha_ r the n_c_e_ seeks to keep _ the public: "th_ Co_l_in_s _s,s_io_ are not merely charging alleg_ioas; _ey are, and of nce_ would b_ inte_ to be,his[the pom_ole relames]egal l conclusions about the confiden_l _nform_tion he rec_iv_13 App_II_'s P-.rply at _. Brief
**:_ We am unpe_uaded d=t the release of the relatods identity would caum the manuf_c_ any that could rise u_ a [eve] _ecessary to ovexcom¢

Copr, West2004No Claim O zoOrig.U.S. Gov_ Works

·

04/13/2004 Case 13:59 F_X 202514BB66 1:05-cv-00999-MMS

Document 24-10 TAXCT;EASTERRFiled 06/12/2006

Page 11 of 15 _0t1/015

27 F3d 564 (T=ble) (tiP+ =-- 27 F.3d mS+,t_

Page 3 WL'283977, *+3 (4th Cir.(V=,))) served upon the d_fend_t _ to Rule 4 of tim Fed=ral _ of Civil _." 3t U.S.C. § 3730(bX3). _ qu_tam actions aremost _tisated in op_ _ wen _, _ more se_ltive to mlv<_ imblie_ thin mm _ h=_. See,e.g., nited Sm_s e_ veL Taxpaye_,_ga_ns_ U Fr_u_ v. $i_r Co.. 889 F_l 1327 (4th C_.1989) ( q=__ ==tto_ Ht_t_l abs_ se_ of pseudouyms in cout=xgof ©b_ for $231 mflHo_ _ p_od of lev_ buy-out of de_end_), e_ Fimdly, the case of ._ame_v. Jacobso_, 6 F,3d 233 (4_ C_r.1993)_ whiah the _ labds "dimly m_oso_" to the imta_t ease is, in _ct, nothing of the sort. Th_r_ we _ and vacated order de_yi_ the lmr_e+'mqmm'tto pro_ at trial ammymoadyo _ tha__e, howeve+, +owt the condde_ the ques_on of wl_" _b_piainti_ should able w lm'oceed _noaymo_.mlyin o_ be to prolec_heir t minor childrenrom tim "perhaps f s_v=mlFdanmging" e=uo_on_l_ tb_t o_d arise from public c_isclo.tzzrcof the ide_ies of the plaJtai_ who sued t f_rrfliry_c_o_ for lying to them zbo= the medina| procedures they under_ I_ _t 241. Without anonymity, the minorchildren would have learned thnt the man they knew as their father was not ach_ly theirbiological father. Obviously presen_ case is not ana]ogo_. "din The reput_t_ona_ harm assezted he_, evenwereit shown, woubtno_comedose to ov_comi_ theb_de_ of poblic access. In _on, the presenceof d_e go_ in the instant case sug_sts _ even gr_=r p_m_ption in favor of a public _eeord. Finny,_ _ zhs_ timgov_ has "no ram+ore"o mqtdm the con_Isin_'s t _g i_ simply in_-v_ Theburdenisnoton r_ _v_-n_ zo its interest, but on the pfivam party to show why i_ i_mresthould s ovm_nm th_ public's J_e_est _imright _cc_ss jm_dst records.uch J m m S b_ h_ herenot b_n m_L

the pxesumpdon of openne_ To The extent _l_t _g _. t_ omp'_xt is based on _v_eg_ information,tl_t bzfornafion is largely o_ in the s_d=_ agreement. Cextai_y, tl_ identity of the _elator is not confi&=_da]traderthe atto_-client I_ri_ege. The main coe.cem_ to bc tim sufferingof repumtionalharm, ff R Is discovered r_t one of appellant_s lawymm i_-t_ted a qui tam m:flon *,heeox_o_tion. But _ the Sixth Ch_t obsen,ed in Brown & R/Jniamson TobaccoCorp. _. _ 710 F.2d H65, 1179 (6th Cir.1983)_ c_ d_led, 465 U,S, 1100 (1984), "[s]h_ptyshowing t_t the [sealed] infozmadon would harm [s] cemp_y's mput_io_ is not sufficient to overcomethe stro_ _nnmn law _esmnplion in favor of public _ to court proceedings and records." A_ord WTlzon v. American Motors Corp., 759. K2d 1568, 1570.71 (llth Ch-J985). Them b.asb_n no showi_ _hat_ mmx_s _lmtmic_ would be _ by tit= release of infozmation now sealed. Morn than enough infonmtiou is eh_ady pub_ in tl_ fon'n of theSettlement Agreement, to createw_ is asserted wouldbc_eputstional arm. h l'_ext it has been argued tlmt a release of the complaint would undm'minepzie_ decisions of r_e d=_i_t courtendthisCourts_l_n_ th=l_oceedingS the related ¢a._s between _e two pdv_ psrfi_. The numufactur_r1== chinmd that arm_ wixh the inform=do_ eontaln_ in the con_]air_ a diligent person could as_ tl_ id_nfifie.s of tl_ pm_ies m the o_e_ _tions. We a_ pmsuad_ th=z _ L_ atm=ly su_cient public tnfor=ttion from which · z_.._e=r._ could learn the ide_i_iesof the par_. The_fi_re, the harm alleged isactu_y ilb_ory. Mo_ im_m_, the e_= de¢isio= ren_=i by d_ district _urt and by us did not dL_r.tlyinvolve the gov_omu_. Wlmm t_e government is invo_vrd _n the ]i_8=t_, th=e is an u_deniabl_ pubUo _eres_ r_ds ofth_ pm=_=d_ We note thatthe qu+tam _ _, w_ch makes som_ provision for _ s=d_g of mc_m_ds while a cme is in prog_, conmn_la_es that th¢_afl_ t_ recor& shouid be re,!essc& Thv p,_fin_t provisionr_z_r_s _ti_ fi]J_g of the the Compla_m to be r_=de under seal and in camera; ai_r the Unite_ St=te_Ires made i+se_ction w_ther or not to proce_xl c_mp_ is unsealedand "P_
_.

A_ordi_y, j_ the
_FFIRMED.

is

Only thedls_ri_ court's ruling wi_ ¢esl_ctm the Modo_ to Msinmin Cm_f_Imt_ taf_io_ Und_ Sr_1 is b_fomthis ouP-_tly, c we refer m theform_ empio_ aSt_ "relator" only for the sgke d c, nvemence_ bu_ m_¢ no o

0 WP.,_ 2004 No Claim to _dg. U.S. Gov_ Works

Case 1:05-cv-00999-MMS

Document 24-10

Filed 06/12/2006

Page 12 of 15

27 F.3d564O'abie) 27 F.3d564 ('rab_), 1994 WL 283_/7(4e Cir.(VL))ord_a L R_. l_ Un1_blish_d 22 D_
_'NDOF DOCL IvJ_

l'Ip4

Col_-.© West 2004 No Claim to Or_. US. C-ovLWoE_

04/13/20041:05-cv-00999-MMS Case 13:59 FAX 2025146866
j ",

DocumentTAXCTSEASTERN 24-10 Filed 06/12/2006

Page 13 of 15_]013/015

IN THE UNII_D

STATES

DISTRICT

COURT

FOR THE NORTI:_RN DALLAS

DISTRICT DIVISION

OF TEXAS

JO_ DOEI ANDJOHNDOB2,

)

H_ntiffs,
v. K.PMG LLP, Defvrg_at. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, /ntvrvenor-D_fendant ORDER DE_MERGENC_

) ) )
)

C.A. No. 3:03-CV-2036-H

)
)

)
)

)
)

.)
) MOTION TO ALTER OR.AMF.ND JUDGMI_.NT

This matter is before the Court upon the _erge_y amend file Judgment entered in this case on April

motion of the plaintiffs to alter or the documents that the and for that

12, 2004, by re-sealing

Court had ordered unsealed. the reasons disoussed

The United States opposes the motion.

Upon consideration,

in the memorandum the previously

filed by the United States, the Court dctemdn_ sealed do_Iments under seal. that the plaintiffs"

them is no right to mahltatn Accordingly,

it is this

day of April is DENIED.

2004, ORDERED

]_merg_oy

Motion to AItea"or Amend J'udgment

UNITED

STATES DISTRICT

JUDGE

Case 04113/2004

1:05-cv-00999-MMS 13:59 FAX 2025148888

Document 24-10

TA×CT_EASTERN

Filed 06/12/2006

Page 14 of 15

_014/0t5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION JOHN DOE ] AND JOHN DOE 2, Plaintiffs,
V.

KPMG LIP, Dcfeadant. STATES OF AMERICA, /atcrvenor-Defcndam. ORDER GRANTING

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

C.A. No, 3:03.CV-2036-H

IN PART AND DENYING TO ALTER OR _ND

IN ]PART JUDGMENT to aRcr or that the and for tha¢

EMF__GENCY,,,MOTION This matter is before amend the Judgment ente_d

the Court upon _e emergency motion of the platntiiTs in this case on April 12, 2004, by re-sealing

the documents

Court had ordered unsvale, d. The United States opposes the motion. the reasons discussed _a_ in the meanomndum the scaled c_ntaL_:l

Upon consideration,

filed by the United States, Lh¢ Court determines under sea], but that the pl_6J_'s' the public's interest

Lsno fight m maintain of the _n£om_on

docummts

interest in the in open judicial

privacy

hi F.,xhibh E outwd_

proceedings. Accordingly, tisthis i _ day of April, 2004, ORDERED inPART 1hat the plaintiffs' Emergency IN PART. The Clerk is

Motion toAlteror Amend Judgraent isGRANTED herebyORDERED

and DENIED

to re-seal xhibitE toK.PMG's Cross Motion forSummary E

Sudgrnent, utto b

maintain in th_ public record all othvr documents Med in this case. All the parties to t.l_s lawsuit, the_" respective colmsel, and the _ Revenue Service rosy have access to Exhibit E.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

04/13/2004 Case

18"58 FAX 2025146886 1:05-cv-00999-MMS

TA×CTSEASTERN Document 24-10 Filed 06/12/2006

Page 15 of 15

015/015

_ERTn_CA_ OF S_C_
IT IS H_REBY MEMORANDUM _3[_R CHR_ that the foregoing TO PLA]N'I'I_I_ ]INTERVENORoDE_'_NDANT'S _ EMERGENCY MOTION TO scrvu'_

IN OPPOSITION JUDG]V_I_r

OR AMEND

and two alternative proposed forms of Order w_

upon counselforthep_tiosthis ___ day of Apr_ 2004, by s_ as follows:

copiesto thsm by f_shn_¢

ROBERT H. ALBARA.L Baker & McKcnzie 2300 Trammel Crow Ccnlz_r 2100 Ross Avcmue Dallas, TX 75201 (214) 978-3O99

TIMOTHY W. MOUNTZ Baker BottsLLP 2100 Ross Avenue Dallas, TX 75201 (214) 661-4423

KEVIN M. DIN'AN King & Spading LLP !730 P_nsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, D.C. 2OOO6 (202) 626-3737

S_D.