7th Circuit Rejects Public-Disclosure Bar in Qui Tam Case

15 August 2014 Wisconsin Appellate Law Blog

A cardinal rule of a qui tam action brought under the False Claims Act is that the relator must be the information’s original source.

In United States ex rel. Heath v. Wisconsin Bell, Inc., No. 12-3383 (7th Cir. July 28, 2014), the Seventh Circuit grappled with this bar on the use of publicly disclosed information, refusing to apply it in a case involving the amounts Wisconsin Bell charged to Wisconsin school districts for phone service. (The  Affordable Care Act modified this rule somewhat, but the change was not retroactive, so the court applied the law that was in effect before the Affordable Care Act became law.) 

Certain Wisconsin school districts employed the relator, Heath, to audit their telecommunications bills. Understanding why requires a brief explanation of the Education Rate Program. The program is a federal subsidy created by the Telecommunications Act of 1996. It subsidizes telecommunication services for qualifying school districts, but it requires that any participating telecommunications provider charge “rates less than the amounts charged for similar services to other parties.” 47 U.S.C. § 254(h)(1)(B).

Heath discovered that Wisconsin Bell was overcharging the school districts under this rule. It charged certain school districts more than others, and, as Heath found after unearthing the state’s Voice Network Services Agreement on the Department of Administration’s website, Wisconsin Bell charged other state departments and agencies less than the school districts.

Heath brought a case under the False Claims Act, but the district court dismissed it for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. It adopted Wisconsin Bell’s argument that the publicly available information on the DOA’s website barred Heath’s claim.

The public-disclosure bar is one way that the False Claims Act “seeks to prevent parasitic lawsuits by ‘opportunistic plaintiffs who have no significant information to contribute of their own[.]‘” Slip Op. 5. Applying it is a three-step inquiry: (1) examining whether the relator’s allegations were “publicly disclosed,” (2) asking if the lawsuit is based on that publicly disclosed information, and (3) determining if the relator is the information’s “original source.” Slip Op. 5-6.

Only the second of these three mattered to the Seventh Circuit because it found that Heath’s lawsuit was not based solely on publicly disclosed information. The publicly disclosed Voice Network Services Agreement was only part of his claim. “No one,” the court explained, “could view the agreement in a vacuum and realize that Wisconsin Bell was overcharging school districts.” Slip Op. 7. It was Heath’s “extensive knowledge of the schools’ telecommunications pricing” that made his claim possible. Id. at 8. And Heath, the court held, was that information’s original source because of his work for the school districts.

As it has at least three times before, the court cautioned “against the use of the public disclosure bar at a high level of generality.” Id. at 7. Relators, no doubt, will take note.

This blog is made available by Foley & Lardner LLP (“Foley” or “the Firm”) for informational purposes only. It is not meant to convey the Firm’s legal position on behalf of any client, nor is it intended to convey specific legal advice. Any opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of Foley & Lardner LLP, its partners, or its clients. Accordingly, do not act upon this information without seeking counsel from a licensed attorney. This blog is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Communicating with Foley through this website by email, blog post, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship for any legal matter. Therefore, any communication or material you transmit to Foley through this blog, whether by email, blog post or any other manner, will not be treated as confidential or proprietary. The information on this blog is published “AS IS” and is not guaranteed to be complete, accurate, and or up-to-date. Foley makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, as to the operation or content of the site. Foley expressly disclaims all other guarantees, warranties, conditions and representations of any kind, either express or implied, whether arising under any statute, law, commercial use or otherwise, including implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Foley or any of its partners, officers, employees, agents or affiliates be liable, directly or indirectly, under any theory of law (contract, tort, negligence or otherwise), to you or anyone else, for any claims, losses or damages, direct, indirect special, incidental, punitive or consequential, resulting from or occasioned by the creation, use of or reliance on this site (including information and other content) or any third party websites or the information, resources or material accessed through any such websites. In some jurisdictions, the contents of this blog may be considered Attorney Advertising. If applicable, please note that prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Photographs are for dramatization purposes only and may include models. Likenesses do not necessarily imply current client, partnership or employee status.

Related Services