United States Ex Rel. Durham v. Prospect Waterproofing, Inc.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• finding that relator’s description of a “general privacy interest in keeping his identity secret from his employer to avoid any potential retaliation should disclosure occur ... is not sufficient to tip this factor towards Relator.”
• explaining that “there is less of a pressing concern to unseal pleadings if they are not relevant to the claims,” for example, they were not used at trial or relied upon by the trial judge in his decision
• explaining that “there is less of a pressing concern to unseal pleadings if they are not relevant to the claims,” for example, they were not used at trial or relied upon by the trial judge in his decision
• explaining that “there is less of a pressing concern to unseal pleadings if they are not relevant to the claims,” for example, if they were not used at trial or relied upon by the trial judge in his or her decision
• “Voluntary Dismissals of FCA actions do not render the allegations any less relevant to the taxpaying public”
• “Voluntary dismissals of FCA actions do not render the allegations any less relevant to the taxpaying public.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).