N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
NYLE J. HOOPER , Plaintiff - Appe lla nt, And UNITED STATES OF AM ERIC A, Plaintiff,
v. LOC KHEED M AR TIN C ORPOR ATION, De fe nda

nt - Appe lle e . No. 14-56192 D.C . No. 2:08-c v-00561-B R OPJW
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia B e ve rly R e id O’ C onne ll, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d Fe brua

ry 1, 2016 Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia 

# FIL ED FEB 12 2016 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S
. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3.B e fore : PAEZ a nd M . SM ITH, C irc uit Judge s a n d SILVER , ** Se nior Distric t Judge
. I. Intr oduc tion This c a se is be fore us for a se c ond tim e . In the prior a ppe a l , we re ve rse d the distric t c o urt’ s sum

m ary judgm e nt a ga inst Pla intiff Ny l e J. Hoope r a s to oneFa lse C la im s Ac t

the ory , a ffirm e d the grant of sum m ary judgm e nt a s to two other the o rie s, a

nd re ve rse d the dism issa l of Hoope r’ s re ta lia tion c la im
. Hoope r v . Loc k he e d Martin C

orp., 688 F.3d 1037 (9th C ir. 2012) (“ Hoope r I ” ). On re m and, the c a se proc e e de d

to a six-da y jury tria l. The jury

found for De fe nda

nt Loc khe e d M artin C orporation, a

nd the c ourt e nte re d

judgm e nt a g a i nst Hoope r. The fa c ts of thec a se are fam ilia r to the pa

rtie s, a nd the ba c kground of the Air Forc e ’ s R ange Sta

n d ardiz ation a

nd Autom ation (R SA) IIA proje c t is se t forth in our prior opinion. We the re fore do not re c ite the fa c ts he re e xc e pt a s ne e de d in our disc ussion of Hooper’ s a rgum e nts on a

ppe a l . Finding m e rit in noneof those
argum e nts, we a ffirm
. II. Jur y Instr uc tion 21 W a s Not E r r o ne o us At tria l, Hoope r pursue d a the ory tha t the invoic e s submitte d unde r the R SA IIA c ontra c t we re fra

udule nt be c a

use Loc khe e d

fra udule ntly unde rbid for the

** The Honora

ble R osly n O. Silve r, Se nior Distric t Judge for the U.S. Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ariz ona , sitting by de signa tion. 2c ontra c t. “ [F] a lse e stim ate s, de fine d to inc l ude fra udule nt unde rbidding in which the b id is not wha

t the de fe nda

nt a c tua lly

inte n d s to c ha

rge , c an be a

sourc e of lia bility unde r the FC A, a ssum ing tha t the othe r e l e m e nts of a

n FC A c la i m

are
m e t.” Hoope r I

, 688 F.3d a

t 1049 (interna l re fe re nc e om i tte d). Thus, it wa s not
ne c e ssa ry for Hoope r to se pa

rat e ly prove the fa lsity

of e a c h invoic e , be c a

use

“ lia bility will a tta c h to e a c h c la im

subm i tte d to thegove rnm e nt unde r a c ontra c t, whe n the c ontra c t

or e xte nsion of governm e nt be ne fit wa s origina l ly obta ine d through fa lse sta

t e m e nts or fra

u dule nt c onduc t.” U.S. e

x re l. He ndow

v . Univ . of Phoe nix , 461 F.3d 1166, 1173 (9th C ir. 2006). In the Joint Pre tria l C onfe re nc e Orde r, Hoope r state d tha t he inte nde d

to

“ introduc e e vide nc e tha

t De fe nda nt submi tte d a

pproxim ate l y 1200 invoic e s for pa ym e nt in theam ount of $882,717,983.” The jury instruc tions a d dre sse d

the se invoic e s. Instruc t ion 21 sta te d: “ If y ou find tha

t Loc k he e d viola

te d the Fa lse C la im s Ac t , y ou m

ust ide ntify

e a c h spe c ific , individual c la im for pa ym e nt— an invoic e or othe r paym e nt de m and— that M r. Hoope r prove d to c o nstitutea fa lse
c la im .” Hoope r argue s tha

t the jury c ould ha ve unde rstood theinstruc tion to re quire
se pa rate fa lsity

in e a c h invoic e , inste a d of, in a c c orda nc e with Hoope r’ s the ory , in the b id. Howe ve r, Instruc tion 21 m ust be re a d in c onjunc tion with all the 3instruc tions. Instruc tion 14 se t forth thee le m e nts of Hoope r’ s unde rbidding c la im
.

Additionally , instruc t ion 15 spe c ifie d tha t Hoope r a lle ge d tha

t Loc k h e e d subm itte d fa lse c l a im s for pa

ym e nt in the form

of invoic e s. Hoope r’ s propose d instruc tion 8,
c onc e rning pe n a ltie s , would ha ve instruc te d the jury

to “ de c ide how m a

ny suc h
c la im s or sta

te m e nts, if a

ny , we re m a de or pre s e nte d to theGove rnm e nt by Loc khe e d.” Instruc tion 21 did not e

rrone ously

instruc t the jury

tha t it ne e de d to find inde pe nde nt fa lse hood in e a c h invoic e . It m e re ly re q uire d the jury

to ide ntify

e a c h fa lse invoic e if it found lia bility . B e c a

use the jury

found no Fa lse C l a im s Ac t viola tion, it le ft bla

nk the late r spa c e on the ve rdic t form for spe c ify ing the num

be r of fa l se c la im s. Ac c ordingly , Hoope r ha s not shown tha t a ny instruc tion missta

te d the
e le m e nts of his c la im , or tha t the distric t c ourt a

buse d its disc re tion in form ulating the i nstruc tions a s a whole
. Se eMasson v . N e w York e r Magazine

, Inc
. , 85 F.3d 1394, 1397 (9th C ir. 1996). III. T he Cour t Did Not Abuse its Disc r e tion in E xc luding H oope r ’s E xpe r t W itne s s Fe de ra l R u le of C i vil Proc e dure 26(a )(2) re quire s a pa rty who m ay pre se nt
e xpe rt te s tim ony

at tria l to providea writte n re port by the e xpe rt “ at the tim e s a nd

4in the se que nc e tha t the c ourt orde rs.” R

ule 37(c )(1) the re fore “ give s te e th” to the disc losure re quire m e nts “by forbidding the

use at tria l of a

ny inform ation re quire d to be disc lose d by

R ule 26(a ) that is not properly disc lose d,” Ye ti by

Molly , Ltd. v
. De c k e rs Outdoor C

orp. , 259 F.3d 1101, 1106 (9th C ir. 2001), unle ss the fa ilure to do so wa s “ substa

ntia lly justifie d or is ha

rm le ss.” Fe d. R . C iv. P. 37(c )(1). W e re vie w the im

position of disc ove ry

sa nc tions for a

buse of disc re tion. Pay n ev . Ex x on C o rp. , 121 F.3d 503, 507 (9th C ir. 1997). On re m and, Hoope r sought to re ope n disc ove ry , but thedistric t c ourt did so only for the re t a lia

tion c la im , whic h

ha d not be e n the subje c t of prior disc o ve ry , and de c line d to re ope n disc ove ry on the unde rbidding c la im . None the le ss, Hoope r e nga ge d a n e xpe rt, M a l e k, to a

na ly z e softwa

re e stim ation file s Loc khe e d ha d produc e d in disc o ve ry . M a l e k’ s re port m ostly re late d to unde rbidding, with only a fe w c onc lusory

sta te m e nts re l ate d to there ta lia tion c la im . To the e xte nt Hoope r c ould ha v e shown tha

t his fa ilure to tim e ly

produc e M a le k’ s re port in theorigina l disc ove ry pe riod wa s substa

ntia lly justifie d or ha

rm le ss, he should ha

ve m o ve d the distric t c o urt to m odify

the sc he duling orde r unde r R ule 16. Inste a d, Hoope r took the unsupporta

ble position tha

t the M a le k re port wa s re a lly a bout his re ta lia

tion
c la im . In suc h c irc um sta

n c e s, the distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion in striking the

M a le k re port, thus pre c luding him from te stify ing a

t tria l. 5IV . T he Distr ic t Cour t Did Not Abuse its Disc r e tion in E xc luding Polliar d

“ The c ourt m a

y e xc lude re le va

nt e vide nc e if its proba

tive va lue is substa ntia lly outwe ighe d by

a da nge r of one or m ore of the following: unfair pre j udic e , c onfusing theissue s, m isle a ding thejury , undue de la y , wa sting time , or ne e dle ssly

pre s e nting c um

ulative e vide nc e .” Fe d. R . Evid. 403. “W e re vie w e xc lusion of e vide nc e unde r R u le 403 for a

n a buse of disc re t ion.” Unite d State s v . Garc ia , 729 F.3d 1171, 1175 (9th C ir. 2013). Distric t c ourts a re not re q uire d to
e nga ge “ in a

m e c ha nic a l re c ita

t ion of R ule 403’ s form

ula on the re c ord . . . [a ] s long a s it a

ppe a rs from the re c ord a s a

whole tha

t the tria l judge a de quate ly
we ighe d the probative va lue and pre judic ia l e ffe c t of proffe re d e vide nc e be fore its
a dm ission.” B ow oto v . C

he v ron C orp. , 621 F.3d 1116, 1131 (9th C ir. 2010) (quoting Unite d State

s v . Sangre

y , 586 F.2d 1312, 1315 (9th C i r. 1978)) (a lte ration in original). Pollia rd is a form e r Air Forc e offic e r an d c ontra c tor. He he lpe d te st R SA IIA softwa re from 1998 to 2000, a

nd re turne d to m ana g e the softwa re in 2008. Pollia

rd would ha ve te stifie d tha

t Loc khe e d fa ile d to m e e t the c o ntra c t re q

uire m e nts be c a use it provide d woe fully de fic ie nt softwa re , whic h im

pose d signific ant dire c t
c osts on the

Air Forc e . Hoope r sought to use this te stim ony

to prove tha

t

6“ Loc khe e d’ s de fe c tive pe rform anc e wa s the re sult of nume rous c orne rc utting

m e a sure s a

n d ine ffic ie n c ie s c a

u se d by its unde rbidding of the

c ontra c t .” The distric t c ourt e x c lude d Pollia rd’ s te stim ony e ntire ly , e xc e p t a s pote ntia l
re butta l if Loc khe e d ope ne d the door by introduc ing e vide nc e of the high qua lity of its work. During tria

l, the c ourt c onside re d whe the r spe c ific e vide nc e ope ne d the door to Pollia

rd’ s te stim o ny , a

nd re m inde d Loc khe e d tha t if it c hose to introduc e e vide nc e of the high qua lity of its work, tha t would open the door. Loc khe e d did not introduc e suc h e vide nc e , so Pollia rd did not te s tify
. In c onditionally

e xc luding Pollia

rd’ s te stim ony , the distric t c ourt re a sone d that the poor qua lity

of the softwa

re Loc k he e d provide d would not be dire c tly probat ive of “ c utting c orne rs a nd unde rbidding,” and tha t the purporte d pe rform a nc e de fic ie nc ie s we re unfa irly pre judic ia l. The Air Forc e itse lf
a c knowle dge d the “ we ’ re kind of de v e loping it a s we ’ re going” nature of the R SA IIA c ontra c t, furthe r disc onne c t ing a ny pe rform a n c e de fic ie nc y

from any unde rbids. Inde e d, the Air Forc e e ve ntua lly pa i d Loc khe e d a

pproxim ate ly

twic e the i nitia l bid. This further supports thedistric t c ourt’ s a sse ssm e nt of the disc onne c t be twe e n the unde rbidding the ory an d Pollia

rd’ s pe rform anc e te stim ony , be c a use it is not a s if Loc khe e d c ut c orne rs to de live r a produc t for the origina l bid

7pric e . Furthe r, Pollia rd ha d no knowle dge of the de t a ils of the initia l bid or
c ontra c t, a

nd wa s not involve d in c ontra c t c h ange proposa ls. Thus, thedistric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion in c onside ring, ba la nc ing,
and ultimat e ly

e xc luding Pollia

rd’ s te stim ony

unde r R ule 403. V . Conc lusion The judgm e nt is AFFIR

M ED.

8