Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_11-cv-01987/USCOURTS-cand-3_11-cv-01987-14/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 690
Nature of Suit: Other Forfeiture and Penalty Suits
Cause of Action: 31:3729 False Claims Act

---

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

GARY SIEBERT,

Plaintiff,

v.

GENE SECURITY NETWORK, INC,

Defendant.

Case No. 11-cv-01987-JST 

ORDER GRANTING LEAVE TO FILE 

SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING AND 

DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION IN 

LIMINE NO. 4

Re: ECF Nos. 136, 164

Before the Court are Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine No. 4 and Administrative Motion for 

Order Granting Leave to File Supplemental Briefing Regarding Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine No. 

4. ECF Nos. 136, 164. Defendant opposes both motions. See ECF Nos. 150, 172.

1

 Relatedly, 

Defendant has also moved in limine to exclude the deposition testimony of, and declaration from, 

Michelle Bulls. ECF No. 140. In response, Siebert has reduced somewhat his designations of Ms. 

Bulls’ testimony. The Court will deny Plaintiff’s motion, and deny Defendant’s motion as Bulls’ 

declaration and most of her deposition except for objections to a few deposition questions. 

I. Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine No. 4

In his Motion in Limine No. 4, Plaintiff seeks to exclude “all evidence relating to whether 

and/or to what extent the United States was damaged by any false statement, certification, 

verification or claim made to the United States by GSN in connection with [] GSN’s receipt of 

NIH grant funds at issue in this matter.” ECF No. 136 at 5. Plaintiff contends that where the 

damage to the government is difficult to quantify, as here, damages resulting from any proven 

FCA violation are necessarily the full sum of grants issued, which is then trebled. See id. at 5-7 

 

1 Because GSN has addressed on the merits the issue discussed in Plaintiff’s proposed 

supplemental brief, the Court grants Plaintiff leave to file it. The Court also grants leave to 

Defendant to submit its response. 

Case 3:11-cv-01987-JST Document 180 Filed 01/16/15 Page 1 of 5
2

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

(citing United States ex rel. Longhi v. Lithium Power Techs., 575 F.3d 458 (5th Cir. 2009)). 

Because the issue of damages is not in dispute, says Plaintiff, “[t]here can be no basis for the jury 

to find GSN’s false statements did not damage the United States in the full amount of the awarded 

grants.” Id. at 7. Defendant counters that damages are still in issue, and therefore evidence 

relating to them should not be excluded at trial, because a plaintiff-relator must prove the element 

of causation to be eligible to receive treble damages, rather than merely statutory penalties. See

ECF No. 150 at 6-11. In response, Plaintiff acknowledges that a plaintiff-relator must prove 

causation in order to recover damages (as opposed to penalties) under the FCA, but argues that 

“[t]he standard for causation set forth by the Longhi court is not nearly as stringent as GSN 

contends” and “Plaintiff is unaware of any case or authority holding the testimony of an actual 

decision[-]maker [in the grant application process] is required to prove causation.” See Pl.’s 

Suppl. Br., ECF No. 164-1 at 1-2.

The Court finds that it would be improper to exclude damages evidence at trial. Even 

Plaintiff concedes in his supplemental briefing that he must prove the element of causation in 

order to recover damages. Id. at 2 n.3 (“Under the False Claims Act, the elements of causation 

and materiality are inextricably intertwined; the natural tendency test used to evaluate materiality 

is on the same spectrum of causation required for the relator to recover treble damages.”) 

(emphasis added). And so “evidence relating to whether and/or to what extent the United States 

was damaged by any false statement, certification, verification or claim made to the United States 

by GSN in connection with [] GSN’s receipt of NIH grant funds” must be admitted if Siebert 

seeks to recover damages. See 37 U.S.C. § 3729(a)(1) (“any person who [violates the FCA] is 

liable to the United States Government for a civil penalty of not less than $5,000 and not more 

than $10,000 . . ., plus 3 times the amount of damages which the Government sustains because of

the act of that person.”); Longhi, 575 F.3d at 473 (“Before the government may recover treble 

damages, it must ‘demonstrate the element of causation between the false statements and the 

loss.’” (citing United States v. Miller, 645 F.2d 473, 475-76 (5th Cir. 1981)); Laymon v. 

Bombardier Transp. (Holdings) USA, Inc., No. 05-169, 2009 WL 793627, at *14 (W.D. Pa. Mar. 

23, 2009) (“Under the [FCA], it is the qui tam relator’s burden to prove damages, as he stands in 

Case 3:11-cv-01987-JST Document 180 Filed 01/16/15 Page 2 of 5
3

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

the place of the government. When the government has not suffered any actual monetary 

detriment, the government is limited to the imposition of statutory penalties provided for under the 

FCA.”) (internal citations omitted); United States v. Eghbal, 548 F.3d 1281, 1284-85 (9th Cir. 

2008) (finding, in the mortgage context, that “misrepresentations had a causal connection . . . 

sufficient support FCA liability”). 

The Court also agrees with Plaintiff, however, that evidence from an actual decision-maker 

is not necessary to prove the causation element. See, e.g., Eghbal, 548 F.3d at 1285 (relying on 

admissions by FCA defendants—not government decision-makers—to find that causation element 

had been proven).

2

 

Finally, in his supplemental briefing, Plaintiff also asks to designate for presentation to the 

jury at trial certain excerpts of Michelle Bulls’ deposition related to the award of grant funds. ECF 

No. 164-1 at 5. Defendant objects to Plaintiff’s belated designation, which is his third, and asks, 

at the least, to be provided an opportunity to file objections to the renewed designation. ECF No. 

172 at 2 n.1.

The Court will permit Plaintiff to file his third designation of Michelle Bulls’ deposition 

testimony. This testimony has been available to Defendant for some time, and was discussed at 

length in the briefs on the cross-motions for summary judgment in this case. Accordingly, the 

Court finds that Defendants will not be unduly prejudiced by the admission of different excerpts of 

that testimony at trial. Defendants will also have the opportunity to object to Plaintiff’s 

designation. 

II. Defendant’s Motion To Exclude Deposition Testimony of and Declaration 

from Michelle Bulls

Defendant moves to exclude the deposition testimony of Michelle Bulls. ECF No. 140. 

Defendant argues that these materials are irrelevant; that certain questions asked during the 

deposition were leading; and that other questions posed improper hypotheticals. 

 

2 Defendant does not dispute this, but only points to cases where FCA plaintiffs did provide 

decision-maker evidence. See ECF no. 172 at 4.

Case 3:11-cv-01987-JST Document 180 Filed 01/16/15 Page 3 of 5
4

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

For the most part, these objections are not well-taken. Bulls’ testimony is relevant and will 

not lead to confusion, prejudice, or the undue consumption of time. The objections to the 

questions and answers at 136:6-23, however, are sustained. The questions contain improper 

hypotheticals. Similar objections to questions about Robin McElroy are overruled; if Defendant 

believes that the minor discrepancies in Siebert’s counsel’s questions are material, it can bring 

those out in its presentation, and the jury can consider the effect, if any, of those discrepancies on 

the weight to be given to the witness’ answers. Defendant’s objections to other portions of the 

deposition are overruled. 

Defendant also moves to exclude Bulls’ declaration on the grounds that it is hearsay and 

contains improper legal conclusions. Plaintiff argues that the document “is not offered to prove the 

truth of its contents but rather to allow the jury to understand and consider the context in which the 

Declaration is quoted verbatim within the deposition questions and answers to be introduced into 

evidence by Siebert at trial,” ECF No. 153 at 7, and that the document contains no impermissible legal 

conclusions. 

The Court concludes that the declaration may be admitted for the non-hearsay purpose of 

explaining Bulls’ deposition testimony. The Court will entertain a timely request for limiting 

instruction that the declaration be considered only for this purpose. 

The objection that Bulls’ declaration contains impermissible legal conclusions is sustained, 

consistent with the Court’s earlier summary judgment ruling. See ECF No. 125 at 7. The parties are 

ordered to meet and confer regarding redactions to the declaration to eliminate such conclusions, and 

to present a stipulated redacted document, or competing proposals for redaction, at least twenty-four 

hours before Bulls’ testimony. 

CONCLUSION

For the reasons discussed above, Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine No. 4 is denied. The Court 

also will permit Plaintiff to designate the requested testimony of Michelle Bulls for use at trial, but

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

Case 3:11-cv-01987-JST Document 180 Filed 01/16/15 Page 4 of 5
5

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

will permit Defendant to serve objections to that testimony. Defendant must serve and file its 

objections by January 18, 2015. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 16, 2015

______________________________________

JON S. TIGAR

United States District Judge

Case 3:11-cv-01987-JST Document 180 Filed 01/16/15 Page 5 of 5