United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit

____________ FILED August 31, 2023 No. 22-40707 Lyle W. Cayce ____________ Clerk

United States of America, ex rel Caleb Hernandez and Jason Whaley, Relators, Et al.,

Plaintiff,

versus

Team Finance, L.L.C.; Team Health, Incorporated; Team Health Holdings, Incorporated; Ameriteam Services, L.L.C.; HCFS Health Care Financial Services, L.L.C.; Quantum Plus, L.L.C., doing business as Teamhealth West,

Defendants—Appellees,

versus

Loren Adler,

Movant—Appellant. ______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 2:16-CV-432 ______________________________

Before Wiener, Graves, and Douglas, Circuit Judges. Jacques L. Wiener, Jr., Circuit Judge: Case: 22-40707 Document: 00516879635 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/31/2023

No. 22-40707

Movant-Appellant Loren Adler seeks to permissively intervene in this closed matter to challenge the sealing of records. The district court denied Adler’s intervention on three independent grounds, each of which is a subject of this appeal. Although courts are afforded great discretion in deciding intervention pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(b), the district court’s reasoning was premised on several significant errors. We reverse and remand. I. The underlying case against Defendants-Appellees TeamHealth—a group of private equity-owned healthcare entities—was brought under the qui tam provisions of the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. § 3729 et seq. Two former TeamHealth employees, Caleb Hernandez and Jason Whaley (together, the “Relators”), alleged that TeamHealth routinely billed for non- existent doctor examinations and critical care services. The matter was unsealed in 2018 after federal and state governments declined to intervene. The Relators moved forward with their case, which survived dismissal and proceeded through extensive discovery. The parties jointly agreed to a protective order but disputed its contours. For example, TeamHealth fought to use a special designation of “Highly Confidential – Attorneys’ Eyes Only” to protect “highly competitive information.” Relators contended that this designation was unnecessary because the case “d[id] not involve an intellectual property or trade secret[s].” The district court ruled that TeamHealth could implement its requested designation as necessary. Throughout 2020, Relators proceeded to challenge the confidentiality designations of specific swathes of documents. TeamHealth responded by seeking additional protective orders. The district court held a hearing and granted TeamHealth’s requests for protection with the caveat that the

2 Case: 22-40707 Document: 00516879635 Page: 3 Date Filed: 08/31/2023

No. 22-40707

documents could be reconsidered later in the context of trial. As the case proceeded, the district court entered orders sealing relevant documents.