Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-00746/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-00746-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 375
Nature of Suit: False Claims Act
Cause of Action: 31:3729 False Claims Act

---

1

Case No. 15-CV-00746-LHK 

ORDER RE: STAY OF DISCOVERY

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

SAFRAN GROUP, S.A., et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 15-CV-00746-LHK 

ORDER RE: STAY OF DISCOVERY

On October 19, 2016, the Court held an initial case management conference in the instant 

case. Defendant Safran USA, Inc. (“Safran USA”) requested a stay of discovery until the 

pleadings were set. ECF No. 29 at 6. The Court denied the request for a stay of discovery. Thus, 

since October 19, 2016, the parties were free to engage in discovery.

On January 19, 2017, the Court granted Defendant Safran USA’s motion to dismiss the 

second amended complaint because Relators failed to meet Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b)’s 

pleading standard. ECF No. 54. The second amended complaint failed to plead facts describing

the “who . . . when, where, and how” of the alleged fraud, as required under Ninth Circuit 

precedent. See Vess v. Ciba-Geigy Corp. USA, 317 F.3d 1097, 1106 (9th Cir. 2003). In fact, even 

though Relators purport to be “insiders” of Defendants in this case, the second amended complaint

Case 5:15-cv-00746-LHK Document 56 Filed 01/20/17 Page 1 of 3
2

Case No. 15-CV-00746-LHK 

ORDER RE: STAY OF DISCOVERY

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

provided no specifics about Safran USA’s role in the alleged fraud whatsoever and, instead, relied

on public information from Safran USA’s website. This was especially troubling given that the 

second amended complaint was Relators’ third attempt at pleading a claim against Defendants.

Given these deficiencies in the second amended complaint, Safran USA filed a Motion to 

Postpone Deposition of Frank Barret Pending Ruling on Motion to Dismiss SAC. ECF No. 48. 

Relators filed no opposition to Safran USA’s motion. 

After considering the deficiencies in Relators’ second amended complaint, the Court 

granted a stay of all discovery, and denied as moot the specific request to postpone the deposition 

of Frank Barret. ECF No. 55; see Little v. City of Seattle, 863 F.2d 681, 685 (9th Cir. 1988) (“The

district court has wide discretion in controlling discovery.”); Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 

254–55 (1936) (citing Kan. City S. Ry. Co. v. United States, 282 U.S. 760, 763 (1931)) (“The 

power to stay proceedings is incidental to the power inherent in every court to control the 

disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and 

for litigants.”).

The Court reached this decision based on the lack of specificity in the second amended 

complaint and the particular nature of the claims asserted in the instant case, the False Claims Act 

and the California False Claims Act. “‘Qui tam suits are meant to encourage insiders privy to a 

fraud on the government to blow the whistle on the crime.’ Because ‘insiders privy to a fraud on 

the government’ should have adequate knowledge of the wrongdoing at issue, such insiders should 

be able to comply with Rule 9(b).” Bly-Magee v. California, 236 F.3d 1014, 1019 (9th Cir. 2001) 

(citing Wang v. FMC Corp., 975 F.2d 1412, 1419 (9th Cir. 1992)); see also 31 U.S.C. 

§ 3730(e)(4)(A) (requiring that relators either plead non-public information or be the original

source of the public information); Cal. Gov’t Code § 12652(d)(3)(A) (same). 

Multiple courts have held that it is inappropriate to allow qui tam relators to use discovery 

as a means of satisfying the pleading requirements of Rule 9(b):

“[A]llowing a relator to plead generally at the outset and amend the complaint at 

the 12(b)(6) stage after discovery would be at odds with the FCA’s procedures for 

filing a qui tam action and its protections for the government . . . . Other courts 

Case 5:15-cv-00746-LHK Document 56 Filed 01/20/17 Page 2 of 3
3

Case No. 15-CV-00746-LHK 

ORDER RE: STAY OF DISCOVERY

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

have repeatedly refused to allow qui tam relators to rely on later discovery to 

comply with Rule 9(b)’s pleading requirements . . . . The reluctance of courts to 

permit qui tam relators to use discovery to meet the requirements of Rule 9(b) 

reflects, in part, a concern that a qui tam plaintiff, who has suffered no injury in 

fact, may be particularly likely to file suit as ‘a pretext to uncover unknown 

wrongs.’”

U.S. ex rel. Karvelas v. Melrose-Wakefield Hosp., 360 F.3d 220, 231 (1st Cir. 2004), abrogation 

on other grounds recognized by U.S. ex rel. Gagne v. City of Worcestor, 565 F.3d 140 (1st Cir. 

2009) (citations omitted); see also E. Bay Mun. Utility Dist. v. Balfour Beatty Infrastructure, Inc., 

2013 WL 6698897, at *9 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 19, 2013) (denying qui tam relators’ request to compel 

defendants to respond to discovery, and stating that qui tam relators “are not entitled to take 

further discovery until they file a complaint that complies with Rule 9(b)”); Cal. ex rel. Mueller v. 

Walgreen Corp., 175 F.R.D. 638, 639 (N.D. Cal. 1997) (“As with other claims alleging fraudulent 

conduct, a claim for relief under the California False Claims Act requires that the plaintiff, prior to 

filing his claim, possess a reasonable belief based upon articulable facts that a wrong has occurred. 

The claim itself cannot be used as a means for discovering that wrong.”).

The Court finds these decisions persuasive, and therefore finds good cause to stay 

discovery until Relators satisfy the requirements of Rule 9(b). See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c) (allowing 

stays of discovery for good cause shown).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 20, 2017

______________________________________

LUCY H. KOH

United States District Judge

Case 5:15-cv-00746-LHK Document 56 Filed 01/20/17 Page 3 of 3