Recent DOJ Memos Provide New Tools For False Claims Act Defendants

by Bryan Cave
Contact

Earlier this week, the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) announced that in the fiscal year ending September 30, 2017, it recovered over $3.7 billion in judgments and settlements from civil cases involving the False Claims Act (“FCA”). This number is actually down from the 2016 fiscal year, but it is staggering nonetheless, and demonstrates the potency of the FCA as a tool to combat alleged fraud and enforce federal laws and regulations.  Two recently circulated internal DOJ memoranda, however, may provide FCA defendants with some new tools of their own.

First, a January 10, 2018 memo authored by Michael Granston, the director of the commercial litigation branch of the DOJ’s fraud section, outlined circumstances in which DOJ attorneys should consider pursuing dismissal of non-intervened qui tam actions, meaning civil actions filed by whistleblowers on behalf of the government in which the DOJ has declined to take over.  The memo expands on comments made by Mr. Granston last year which appeared to indicate that the DOJ will act more aggressively to weed out qui tam suits that it views as lacking merit.  The DOJ has the power to seek dismissal of qui tam suits pursuant to 31 U.S.C. § 3730(c)(2)(A), but this power has previously been used “sparingly,” as the memo notes, causing FCA defendants to have to incur substantial costs defending against nonmeritorious suits.  When the government does seek dismissal, its determination is typically afforded great deference by the courts.  The D.C. Circuit holds that the government has an “unfettered right” to dismiss qui tam suits, which unsurprisingly is also the DOJ’s position, while two other circuits (the 9th and 10th) have required the government to identify a “valid government purpose” rationally related to dismissal. 

The Granston memo identifies several factors and circumstances that have supported dismissal under 31 U.S.C. § 3730(c)(2)(A) in the past, but its first and foremost concern is with actions that lack substantial merit. Citing statistics that show that overall FCA filings are at record highs while the government’s rate of intervention remains relatively static, the memo warns that meritless suits, if not kept in check, can drain governmental resources and also saddle the DOJ with adverse opinions affecting its ability to recover in stronger cases.  Interestingly, Mr. Granston writes that DOJ attorneys should consider dismissal not only when the complaint is facially without merit, but also when the government’s investigation of facially plausible allegations reveals that the case has no merit.  Defendants in non-intervened FCA cases therefore may be able to persuade the DOJ to seek dismissal at the declination stage either because the allegations do not state a claim under the FCA or because the claim is factually unsupportable based on the DOJ's own investigation of the complaint.  Defendants also may have continuing opportunities to persuade the DOJ to seek dismissal at later points in the case, if there is a favorable legal or factual development.  Of course, it remains to be seen what issues the DOJ will be willing to consider in evaluating the merit of a non-intervened action.  For instance, will the DOJ be willing to dismiss a qui tam action because the plaintiff cannot show materiality, a highly contentious issue since the Supreme Court’s Escobar decision?  Mr. Granston’s stated concern about adverse precedent suggests that the DOJ may use dismissal as a tool to dispose of cases that are weak as to materiality, an element that will often turn on the government’s own conduct, such as its decision to pay for goods or services that it knew failed to meet regulatory requirements.

Other factors supporting dismissal cited in the memo include where the action is “parasitic” and “adds no useful information to the investigation,” where it interferes with an agency’s policies or is necessary to protect the DOJ’s litigation prerogatives, where the government’s costs are likely to exceed any potential gain, and where the relator has committed “egregious” procedural errors. The memo makes clear that this list is non-exhaustive and that other reasons for seeking dismissal may exist. 

The second memo, authored by Associate Attorney General Rachel Brand on January 25, 2018, could significantly impact FCA cases that rely heavily on allegations that the defendant failed to comply with non-binding agency guidance. The two-page memo builds on a November 16, 2017 memo issued by Attorney General Jeff Sessions (the “Guidance Policy”) prohibiting the DOJ from issuing guidance documents that bind members of the public without undergoing the “notice-and-comment” rule making process.  Under the Guidance Policy, DOJ guidance documents (defined as “any agency statement of general applicability and future effect, whether styled as ‘guidance’ or otherwise, that is designed to advise parties outside the federal Executive Branch about legal rights and obligations”) may create binding obligations on executive branch employees, but not on members of the public. 

Stating that the same principles should also “guide Department litigators in determining the legal relevance of other agencies’ guidance documents in affirmative civil enforcement,” the Brand memo instructs DOJ attorneys in affirmative civil enforcement matters (including FCA cases) that (1) they may not use the DOJ’s enforcement authority “to effectively convert agency guidance documents into binding rules” and (2) they may not use a party’s “noncompliance with guidance documents as a basis for proving violations of applicable law[.]” On this latter point, the memo is emphatic, going so far as to note that the fact “[t]hat a party fails to comply with agency guidance expanding  upon statutory or regulatory requirements does not mean that the party violated those underlying legal requirements; agency guidance documents cannot create any additional legal obligations.”  The new policy announced in the memo applies not only to future affirmative civil enforcement matters, but also to pending matters to the extent practicable.

Though the memo is not limited to FCA cases, it is easy to see how such actions could be impacted. In many healthcare fraud cases, for instance, the case against the defendant is based not only upon alleged violations of statutes and regulations, but also upon allegations that the defendant failed to conform its conduct to guidance issued by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, the Department of Health and Human Services' Office of Inspector General, and other agencies.  Indeed, such allegations are often the tail that wags the dog.  Under the Guidance Policy and the January 25 memo, however, a claim should not be permitted to proceed if the defendant’s liability depends on the existence of a legal duty that is set forth only in guidance documents. 

The memo is not without significant caveats, however. Under the new policy, DOJ attorneys may still use guidance documents in civil enforcement proceedings for “proper purposes,” such as to explain legal duties and obligations that are set forth in existing statutes or regulations, or to establish that the defendant read the guidance and therefore had knowledge of relevant matters discussed therein.  The full scope of the new policy is also limited.  It does not expressly apply to criminal prosecutions or to any proceedings outside of affirmative civil enforcement, nor will it bind private plaintiffs (such as qui tam relators) who assert claims based on alleged violations of regulatory guidance. 

Every current FCA defendant and everyone else whose involvement in highly regulated industries makes them vulnerable to FCA lawsuits should be re-evaluating their defense strategies in light of these memos. Where defendants may not have previously thought to seek dismissal under § 3730(c)(2)(A) at the declination stage, a more proactive approach may now be warranted. At the very least, it appears that the DOJ will be more receptive to the idea of dismissing qui tam actions before they begin to impose significant costs on companies defending them.  Defendants also should vigorously pursue dismissal of claims that appear to be improper attempts to give legal force to nonbinding guidance.  

[View source.]

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Bryan Cave | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

Bryan Cave
Contact
more
less

Bryan Cave on:

Readers' Choice 2017
Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
Sign up using*

Already signed up? Log in here

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Custom Email Digest
Privacy Policy (Updated: October 8, 2015):
hide

JD Supra provides users with access to its legal industry publishing services (the "Service") through its website (the "Website") as well as through other sources. Our policies with regard to data collection and use of personal information of users of the Service, regardless of the manner in which users access the Service, and visitors to the Website are set forth in this statement ("Policy"). By using the Service, you signify your acceptance of this Policy.

Information Collection and Use by JD Supra

JD Supra collects users' names, companies, titles, e-mail address and industry. JD Supra also tracks the pages that users visit, logs IP addresses and aggregates non-personally identifiable user data and browser type. This data is gathered using cookies and other technologies.

The information and data collected is used to authenticate users and to send notifications relating to the Service, including email alerts to which users have subscribed; to manage the Service and Website, to improve the Service and to customize the user's experience. This information is also provided to the authors of the content to give them insight into their readership and help them to improve their content, so that it is most useful for our users.

JD Supra does not sell, rent or otherwise provide your details to third parties, other than to the authors of the content on JD Supra.

If you prefer not to enable cookies, you may change your browser settings to disable cookies; however, please note that rejecting cookies while visiting the Website may result in certain parts of the Website not operating correctly or as efficiently as if cookies were allowed.

Email Choice/Opt-out

Users who opt in to receive emails may choose to no longer receive e-mail updates and newsletters by selecting the "opt-out of future email" option in the email they receive from JD Supra or in their JD Supra account management screen.

Security

JD Supra takes reasonable precautions to insure that user information is kept private. We restrict access to user information to those individuals who reasonably need access to perform their job functions, such as our third party email service, customer service personnel and technical staff. However, please note that no method of transmitting or storing data is completely secure and we cannot guarantee the security of user information. Unauthorized entry or use, hardware or software failure, and other factors may compromise the security of user information at any time.

If you have reason to believe that your interaction with us is no longer secure, you must immediately notify us of the problem by contacting us at info@jdsupra.com. In the unlikely event that we believe that the security of your user information in our possession or control may have been compromised, we may seek to notify you of that development and, if so, will endeavor to do so as promptly as practicable under the circumstances.

Sharing and Disclosure of Information JD Supra Collects

Except as otherwise described in this privacy statement, JD Supra will not disclose personal information to any third party unless we believe that disclosure is necessary to: (1) comply with applicable laws; (2) respond to governmental inquiries or requests; (3) comply with valid legal process; (4) protect the rights, privacy, safety or property of JD Supra, users of the Service, Website visitors or the public; (5) permit us to pursue available remedies or limit the damages that we may sustain; and (6) enforce our Terms & Conditions of Use.

In the event there is a change in the corporate structure of JD Supra such as, but not limited to, merger, consolidation, sale, liquidation or transfer of substantial assets, JD Supra may, in its sole discretion, transfer, sell or assign information collected on and through the Service to one or more affiliated or unaffiliated third parties.

Links to Other Websites

This Website and the Service may contain links to other websites. The operator of such other websites may collect information about you, including through cookies or other technologies. If you are using the Service through the Website and link to another site, you will leave the Website and this Policy will not apply to your use of and activity on those other sites. We encourage you to read the legal notices posted on those sites, including their privacy policies. We shall have no responsibility or liability for your visitation to, and the data collection and use practices of, such other sites. This Policy applies solely to the information collected in connection with your use of this Website and does not apply to any practices conducted offline or in connection with any other websites.

Changes in Our Privacy Policy

We reserve the right to change this Policy at any time. Please refer to the date at the top of this page to determine when this Policy was last revised. Any changes to our privacy policy will become effective upon posting of the revised policy on the Website. By continuing to use the Service or Website following such changes, you will be deemed to have agreed to such changes. If you do not agree with the terms of this Policy, as it may be amended from time to time, in whole or part, please do not continue using the Service or the Website.

Contacting JD Supra

If you have any questions about this privacy statement, the practices of this site, your dealings with this Web site, or if you would like to change any of the information you have provided to us, please contact us at: info@jdsupra.com.

- hide
*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.