Seal Violation Does Not Mandate Dismissal, Supreme Court Says
Client Alert | 1 min read | 12.07.16
On December 6, 2016, the Supreme Court in State Farm and Casualty Co. v. U.S. ex rel. Rigsby rejected the argument that a violation of the FCA’s seal requirement — here, disclosure of the allegations of the sealed complaint to the news media by relator’s counsel — mandates dismissal of a relator’s complaint, holding instead that such a determination is better left to the discretion of the district court. The Court reasoned that the FCA is silent as to the remedy for violating the seal provision, whereas it expressly mandates dismissal elsewhere, and that a rule mandating dismissal could harm the government’s interests —which the seal requirement was meant to protect — by depriving the government of assistance from relators on which it relies to prosecute FCA claims.
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 2 min read | 06.15.26
Kansas Federal Court Applies “Selective Enforcement” Theory to Reject DTSA Claim
A Kansas federal court held that inconsistent enforcement of trade secret rights can defeat a claim under the Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA). In Edelman Financial Engines, LLC v. Mariner Wealth Advisors LLC, No. 2:23-cv-02515-HLT (D. Kan. June 5, 2026), the court applied a selective enforcement theory, holding that when a company does not consistently pursue legal remedies against similarly situated former employees, that inconsistency can be affirmative evidence that it failed to protect its trade secrets. While the selective enforcement theory has appeared in academic hypothetical discussions, the decision appears to be one of the clearest judicial applications of a “selective enforcement” theory in a trade secret case.
Client Alert | 3 min read | 06.12.26
Client Alert | 4 min read | 06.12.26
Auto Dealers: The FTC Is Back in the Driver’s Seat — Warning Letters Signal Renewed Federal Scrutiny
Client Alert | 13 min read | 06.12.26
