PU BL I SH UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS

T E N T H C IR C U IT
U N IT E D S T A T E S O F A M E R IC A , ex re l. V I R G I N I A B E L L E ST O N E , per s onal r e pr e s e nt a t i ve of

the Es t a t e of

J A M ES S. S T ONE , a n d UNI T E D S T AT E S OF AM E RI CA , P l ai nti ffs-A pp el l ees and C ross A pp el l ants , v. N os . 99- 1351, 99- 1352, 99- 1353 RO CK WEL L I NT E RN AT I ONAL CO RPORA TI ON , a n d BO EI NG NO RTH A M E R IC A N , IN C ., D efen dan t s- A pp el l ants and C ross A pp el l ees.

_______________________ AM E RI CA N HOS P I T AL A SSO CI A TI O N , N A TI O N A L D EFEN SE I NDUS T RI AL AS S OC I AT I ON, ELECTRO NI C I ND USTRI ES ALLI AN CE, A m i ci C ur i ae. ( D . C . N o. 89- M - 1154) (D . C o lo .)

OR DE R O N R E M AN D F RO M T HE UNI TE D S TA TE S S UP RE M E C OURT

S. C t . N o. 05- 1272 B ef o re B R I S C O E , H O L L O W A Y , and H A R T Z , C i r cui tJ udges .-2-

B R I S C O E , C i r cui tJ udge.

T hi s cas e i s befor e us aft erthe Supr eme C our tgr ant ed R ockw el l I nt ernat i onal C orpor at i on’ s pet i t i on forw r i tof ce r t i or ar i and r ever s ed the port i on of ourpr i orj udgm ent i n favorof pl ai nt i ff J ames S. St one. R ockw el l I nt ’ l C orp. v. U ni t ed St at es , __ S. C t . __, 2 0 0 7 WL 1 3 8 8 0 3 9 ( M a y1 4 , 2 0 0 7 ) . Co n s i s t e n twi th th e S u p r e me Co u r t ’ s d e c i s i o n , we A FFIRM the di s tr i ctcourt ’ s j udgm enti n favorof the U ni t ed St at es forthe r eas ons s t at ed in o u r prior p an el op inion , U n it ed S tat es v . R o ck w ell Int’l C o rp., 2 8 2 F . 3 d 7 8 7 (10 th C ir . 2002) , and R E M A N D thi s cas e t o the di s tr i ctcourtw i th di r ect i ons t o vaca t e the port i on of the j udgm entent er ed i n favorof St one and di s m i s s St one’ s por t i on of the C ountO ne Fal s e C l ai m s A ctcl ai m s forl ack of s ubj ectm att erj ur i s di ct i on.T hi s or derand j udgm enti s notbi ndi ng pr ece dent , exce ptunderthe doctr i nes of * l aw of the ca s e, r es j udi cat a, and col l at er al es t oppel . T hi s courtgener al l ydi s favor s the ci t at i on of or der s and j udgm ent s ; neverthel es s , an or derand j udgm entm aybe ci t ed under the t erm s and condi t i ons of 10th C i r . R . 36. 3. Ju d g e H a rtz h a s re p lac e d th e late Ju d g e P o lit z o n th e p a n e l. ** 

## F I LED Unite d St at e s C ourt o f Appe als Te nt h Ci r c uit 

### M A R 5 2004 

### PATRICK

FIS HER C l erk UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS

T E N T H C IR C U IT
U N IT E D S T A T E S O F A M E R IC A , ex re l. J AM ES S . STON E, a n d UN I TED S T AT E S OF AM E RI CA , Pl ai nt i ffs - A ppel l ees and C ross -A pp el l ants , v. RO CK WEL L I NT E RN AT I ONAL CO RP. , a n d BO EI NG NO RTH A M E R IC A N , IN C ., D efe ndant s - A ppel l ant s and C ross -A pp el l ees. AM E RI CA N HOS P I T AL A SSO CI A TI O N , N A TI O N A L D EFEN SE I NDUS T RI AL AS S OC I AT I ON, ELECTRO NI C I ND USTRI ES ALLI AN CE, A m i ci C ur i ae. N o s . 9 9 -1 3 5 1 , 9 9 -1 3 5 2 , & 99- 1353

ORDE R AND J UDGM EN T *
B ef o re BR I S COE, HOLL OW AY and HA RTZ C i rcui tJudg es. **See 3 1 U . S . C . § 3 7 3 0 (e)(4). 1 T hes e t erm s ar e expl ai ned i n ourpubl i s hed opi ni on. 2 -2-

ORDE R AF TE R L I M I TE D RE M AND T he di s pos i t i on of the inst antappea l s bypubl i s hed opi ni on fora di vi ded pane l w as s us pended on pet i t i on for r ehea r i ng, and the panel or der ed a l i m i t ed r emand forfi ndi ngs and co ncl us i ons t o as cert ai n w hetherthe R el at or , M r . St one, had s at i s fi ed the s t atut ory re q u ire m e n t o f

d isc lo sin g th e in f

o rm a tio n u n d e rly in g h is c laim s to th e g o v e rn m e n t p rio r to 1 b ri n g in g th is la w s u it. O u r o p in io n , a s m o d if ie d o n re h e a ri n g , is re p o rt e d . U ni t ed Stat es , ex r e l. S to n e v . R o c kw e ll I n te r n a tio n a l C o r

p ., 282 F. 3d 787 ( 10th C ir . 2 0 0 2) . W e w i l l not att empt t o s um m ar i ze i n thi s or der the compl ex fac tual and l egal backgr ound of thi s m att er w hi ch i s out l i ned i n thatopi ni on. T o pr ocee d i n acc or d w i th our r emand or der , the di s tr i ct court first rec ei ved s ubm i s s i ons fr om the part i es cons i s t i ng of m ot i ons s uppor t ed bybr i efs , exce rpt s fr om t he r ecor d, an d addi t i onal m at er i al s ubm i t t ed bydefe ndantR ockw el l . T he courtthen hel d a h e a rin g o n N o v e m b e r 2 5 , 2 0 0 2 , at w h ich a ll co u n se l ag re e d th a t th e re c o rd w a s a d e q u a te to e n a b le th e ju d g e to m a k e th e f in d in g s a n d c o n c lu sio n s n e c e ss a ry. T h e ju d g e m a d e h is fi ndi ngs and conc l us i ons s hor t l yaft erthe hea r i ng, addr es s i ng M r . St one’s c l ai m s i n t hr ee ar eas : pondcr et e, s al t cr et e, and s pr ayi rr i gat i on. 2 A s t o the s pr ay i r r i gat i on cl ai m s , the di s tr i ct court found thatM r . St one had notm ade d isc lo su re o r a t le a st n o t s u f f icie n tly sp e c if

ic d isc lo su re . D e f

e n d a n t a v e rs th a t th is p o in t isSee Pr etr i al O r der, I V A pp. 1063, 1095 at¶ 14 ( s ett i ng outthe t i m e fr ame for 3 p lain tiff ’s s p ra yirrig a tio n c laim ); i d. at1119 ( j uryver di ctform fi ndi ng fordefe ndanton c la im c o v e ri n g th a t tim e p e ri o d ). See Pr etr i al O r der , I V A pp. T abs C & D , 1063, 1097- 99. 4 I ti s w or th not i ng thatthe U ni t ed St at es di d notcont end i n the di s tr i ctcourtthat 5 M r. S to n e h a d f

a iled to m a k e th e n e c e ss a ryd isc lo su re s to th e g o v e rn m e n t. -3- m ootbeca us e the ver di ct for the t i m e fr ame i ncl udi ng thi s cl ai m w as i n i t s favor . W e agr ee. 3 T h u s, w e n e e d n o t co n c e rn o u rse lv e s w ith th e d istric t co u rt’s f in d in g o n th is p o in t. J udge M atsch n o te d thatM r . St one had c oncede d thathe di d notm ake pr e- fi l i ng d isc lo su re to th e g o v e rn m e n t o f a n yk n o w led g e h e m a y h a v e h a d u n d e rly in g h is c laim s w ith r es pect t o “s al t cr et e. ” I n i t s s uppl ement al br i efi ng s ubm i t t ed t o thi s panel aft erthe di s tr i ct co u rt ’s compl et i on of i t s t as k, defe ndantR ockw el l does nots ugges tthatthi s conce s s i on s houl d have a nyeff

ecton the j udgm ent . I n anyevent , fr om r evi ew of the re cor d w e have determ i ned that t he sal t cret e and po nd cret e al l egati on s cent ered on the sam e t i m e peri od s. 4 C ons equent l y , i f di s cl os ur e w as m ade as t o pondcr et e, thatw oul d es t abl i s h j ur i s di ct i on for the cri t i cal t i m e peri od for w hich the juryaw arded d am ages. T hus , the re al poi nt of cont ent i on now i s w hetherSt one di s cl os ed the fa ct s under l y i ng hi s “pondcr et e” c l ai m s t o the governm ent befor e comm enci ng thi s s ui t . O n thi s i s s ue, t he 5 di s tr i ctcourtm ade one es peci all ys i gni fi cantfi ndi ng – thata ce r t ai n documenthad bee n pr oduced t o the governm entb ySt one pr i ort o s ui thavi ng been f i l ed. T hi s document , an “Engi neer i ng O r der ” that St one had att ache d as an exhi bi tt o an af fi davi tfi l ed i n the di s tr i ct court , w as not ed i n ourpr evi ous opi ni on. T he Engi neer i ng O r deri t s el f w as an i nt ernal-4-

R ockw el l documentconce r ni ng pondcr et e. O n the O r der , St one had made thes e handw r i t t en comm ent s : “Thi s des i gn w i l l notw or k in m y o p inion . I s ugges tthata pi l otoper at i on be d e s ig n e d to s im p lif

ya n d o p tim iz e e a c h p h a s e o f th e o p e ra tio n . . . .” 2 8 2 F .3 d a t 8 0 1 . O urvi ew of thi s not at i on, as expr es s ed i n ouropi ni on, i s of cr i t i cal i m por t ance i n the present i nq uiry . W e sai d, “T his E ng i neeri ng O rder w as exp l i ci t i n art i culat in g [ S to n e’s ] bel i ef thatthe pr opos ed des i gn form aki ng pondcr et e w as fl aw ed. ” Id . T h e d istric t co u rt, h o w e v e r, to o k a d if f e re n t v iew o f

th e d o c u m e n t: H i s comm entdoes n o t ad d ress w hetherthe des i gn t o w hi ch he obj ect s i s for t he met h o d o f p u mpi n g th e p o n d s , th e ma n u f a c tu r e o f p o n d c r e t e b l o c k s or bo th. T he documentdoes nots peak f ori t s el f and t o fi nd thatM r . St one comm uni cat ed hi s conce r ns t o the governm entaboutthe m an u fa ctur e of p o n d c re te b e f

o re th e f ili n g o f th is c iv il ac tio n re q u ire s th e c o u rt to sp e c u late aboutthe cont entof conve r s at i ons h e h ad w i th the FB I and EP A agent s and th e A s s i s t a n tU n i t e d S t a t e s A t t o rn e y. Fi ndi ngs and C oncl us i ons at5. T he j udge then r efe rr ed t o the FB I agent ’ s r eport s of i nterview s, kn ow n as 30 2 report s. T he judge sai d that30 2 report s a re m e re lysu m m a rie s o f th e a g e n t’s re c o llec tio n s o f th e c o n v e rsa tio n , b u t it i s al s o fai rt o i nferthati f M r . St one att ache d s uch i m por t ance t o the pot ent i al f o rth e l e a k a g e o f

t o x i c ma t e r i a l s f

r o m th e p o n d c r e t e b l o c k s th a tl a t e rb e c a me the pr i nci pal i s s ue l i t i gat ed at tr i al , ther e w oul d be s om e r efe r ence t o i ti n the agen t ’s report s. Id . at5- 6. W e conc l ude thatthe dist ri ct j udge err ed i n hol di ng thatthe pr oduct i on of the d o c u m e n t w a s in su f

f icie n t to su p p o rt a f

in d in g th a t M r. S to n e h a d c o m m u n ica ted h is conce rns aboutthe manufactur e of pondc r et e t o th e g o v ernmentbefor e fi l i ng hi s act i on. T h is h o ld in g v io la te d th e la w o f th e c a s e , s ee, e. g. , H

uf f m an v. Saul H

oldi ngs Ltd. , 262 F. 3dA s a p p e llan t p u ts it: 6 [T]he D i s tr i ctC our texpr es s l yfound thatM r . St one had pr ovi ded t o the G o v ern m en t i n M arc h 1 9 8 8 – o v er a y ea r before thi s act i on w as fi l ed – the v erysam e d o cu m en ts on w h ich th is C o u rtb ase d it s p ri o r ruli n g that M r. St one s at i s fi ed the “di r ectand i ndepende ntknow l edge” pr ong of the o ri g inal so u rce test . T h is find ing alon e w arran ts de n ial o f R o ck w ell ’s m ot i on. P la in tif f -A p p e lle e /C ro s s -A p p e lla n t J a m e s S . S to n e ’s R e s p o n s e a t 1 . See a l so Pl ai nt i ffA ppel l ee’ s M ar ch 7, 2003 R epl yi n Suppor tof C r os s - M ot i on Fora R ul i ng A ffi r m i ng t he J udgm enti n i t s E nt i r etyat5. W e fi nd i r r el evantthe di s tr i ctcourt ’ s i nfer ence thatthe documentw as not 7 di s cus s ed w i th t he FB I . A s not ed above , the courts ai d that“i f M r . St one att ache d s uch im p o rta n c e ” to th e su b

jec t, th e n it w o u ld b e a f a ir in f e re n c e th a t th e 3 0 2 re p o rt w o u ld cont ai n s om e r efe r ence t o t he s ubj ect . T her e i s no s t atut oryr equi r ementthatthe r el at or h av e e m p h asize d the s p ec ifi c f ac ts on w h ich a claim is l ater b ase d , so lon g as th e f ac ts are di s cl os ed. C ons i der i ng the vol um e of doc um ent s St one pr oduced t o the governm ent , and the n u m b e r a n d sc o p e o f

a c tiv iti e s a b o u t w h ich h e w a s c o n c e rn e d , itw o u ld b e u n so u n d to dr aw the i nfer ence s m ade f r om an FB I agent ’ s s um m ar i zat i on of a meet i ng, as J udge M at s ch hi m s el f had i ndi cat ed on t aki ng the ca s e underadvi s ementatthe cl os e of the hear i ng on r emand. ( I ts eems c l earthatSt one att ache d i m por t ance t o al l of the di s cl os ur es he made t o the governm entconce rni ng pos s i bl e envi r onm ent al cons equenc es o f m ish a n d lin g o f

e x tre m e lyh a z a rd o u s m a ter ials , alth o u g h th e o n lyre lev a n t in q u iryis w h e th e r h e s a tis f

ie d th e d is c lo s u re re q u ir e m e n ts .) -5- 1128, 1132 ( 10th C i r . 2001) , beca us e i ti s fundament al l yi rr econc i l abl e w i th ourpr evi ous h o ld in g , q u o ted a b o v e , a b o u t th e im p o rt o f th e d o c u m e n t. O ur pr evi ous holdi ng aboutthe 6 i m por tof the docu m ent

, t ogetherw i th the dis tr i ct cour t ’s f

i ndi ng on r em and thatthe do cum ent had b een p rodu ced to the g overnm ent bef ore s uit w as f

i l ed, are s uff

i ci ent to ca rry S to n e ’s b u rd e n o

f p e rs u a sio n o n th is p o in t. 7 T h ere fo re, w e h o ld tha t th e juris d ic tio n al disclo su re req u ir em en t w as sa ti sfied . In accordan ce w i th o ur previ ou s opini on , the judgm ent of the d i stri ctcou rti s AFF I RM ED . M r. S t on e’s pen ding m o tio n to supp l em ent the record i s DENI ED as m o o t. R o ck w ell ’s-6-

m oti on for an o rdervacati ng the judgm ent of the d i stri ctcou rti s DENI ED . I T I S S O ORDER ED . ENT ERE D FOR T HE COURT W il li am J. H o ll o w ay , Jr. C i r cui tJ udgeN o s. 9 9 -1 3 5 1 , 9 9 -1 3 5 2 , 9 9 -1 3 5 3 , U .S . ex re l. S to n e v . R o c k w e ll

B R I S C O E , C i r cui tJ udge, di s s ent i ng: I r es pect ful l ydi s s ent . I n m yvi ew , the di s tr i ctcourt ’ s fac tual fi ndi ngs on r emand r ei nfor ce the unmi s t akabl e conc l us i on thatSt one ca nnotes t abl i s h thathe qual i fi es as an “or i gi nal s our ce” under31 U . S. C . § 3730( e) ( 4) ( B ) . I ther efor e aga i n concl ude that St one' s cl ai m s s houl d be di s m i s s ed forl ack of s ubj ectm att erj ur i s di ct i on. A s “the partyi nvoki ng fede r al j ur i s di ct i on, ” St one bor e “the bur den of a l l egi ng fac t s es s ent i al t o s how j ur i s di ct i on underthe Fal s e C l ai m s A ct[FC A ] . ” U ni t ed St at es ex r el . H ol m es v. C ons um erI ns . G r oup, 318 F. 3d 1199, 1202 ( 10th C i r . 2003) ( en banc ) (in ter n a l q u o tatio n s o m itt e d ). B e c a u se h is c laim s u n d e r th e F C A w e re b a se d o n p u b licly di s cl os ed i nform at i on, i n or dert o es t abl i s h s ubj ectm att erj ur i s di ct i on, St one w as r equi r ed to p ro v e h e w a s “ a n o ri g in a l s o u rc e o f th [ a t] in f

o rm a tio n .” 3 1 U .S .C . § 3 7 3 0 (e )( 4 )( A ). T o do s o, St one fi r s thad t o pr ove he “ ha[d] di r ectand i ndepende ntknow l edge of the inf o rm ati o n o n w h ich [ h is] all eg ati o n s [w e]re b ase d . ” 3 1 U . S . C . § 3 7 3 0 (e)(4)(B ). In otherw or ds , St one had t o pr ove he ha d di r ectand i ndepende ntknow l edge of “any es s ent i al el ementof the [unde r l y i ng] fr aud tr ans act i on. ” U ni t ed St at es ex r el . K i ng v. H i l l cr es tH eal th C tr . , I nc. , 264 F. 3d 1271, 1280 ( 10th C i r . 2001) ( i nt ernal emphasi s and q u o tatio n o m itt e d ). S to n e a lso h a d to p ro v e h e “ v o lu n tar ilyp ro v id e d th e in f o rm a tio n to the G o v ern m en t” be fo re f il ing h is qu i t am ac ti o n . 3 1 U . S . C . § 3 7 3 0 (e)(4)(B ). C ountO ne of the amended compl ai nt , as s ert ed j oi nt l ybythe U ni t ed St at es and St one, al l eged ge ner al l ythatR ockw el l vi ol at ed the FC A by“know i ngl ypr es ent i ng or caus i ng t o be pr es ent ed t o t he governm entfal s e orfr audul entcl ai m s form oneyor-2-

pr operty . ” A pp. at995. I n part i cul ar , C ountO ne al l eged that , dur i ng the cour s e of t en s i x- m onth contr actaw ar d per i ods ( runni ng fr om O ct ober1, 1986, thr ough D ece m ber30, 1 9 8 9 ) , Ro c k we l l c o n c e a l e d f r o m th e DOE e n v i r o n me n t a l , s a f e ty , a n d h e a l th p r o b l e ms r el at ed t o the pr oces s i ng and s t or age of pondcr et e and s al t cr et e. A ttr i al , the j uryfound R ockw el l had vi ol at ed the FC A dur i ng thr ee of the contr actaw ar d per i ods ati s s ue and aw ard ed $ 1 , 3 9 0 , 7 7 5 . 8 0 in d am ag es (a n am o u n t equ al t o ten p erc en t of the to tal fe e a w ard b o n u ses re ce ived b yR o ck w ell d u ri n g the th ree co n tr ac t aw ard p eriod s). In m yd iss e n t to th e o rig in a l p a n e l o p in io n , I o u tli n e d w h yS to n e h a d f a iled to estab li sh h e w as a n “o ri g inal so u rce ” w ith resp ec t t o thes e p rev ail ing F C A claim s. In s hor t , I concl uded thatal though St one had a ccur at el ypr edi ct ed i n a 1982 “Engi neer i ng O r der ” w r i t t en dur i ng the cour s e of hi s empl oym entthatR ockw el l ' s pr opos ed des i gn for m a k in g p o n d c re te w o u ld n o t w o rk , A p p . at 4 3 9 , the re w a s n o e v id e n c e th a t h e d ire c tly and i ndepende nt l yknew thatR ockw el l actual l yexper i ence d pr obl ems w hen i tbegan p r o d u c i n g p o n d c r e t e o rth a tRo c k we l l c o n c e a l e d th e r e s u l t i n g e n v i r o n me n t a l p r o b l e ms fr om the D O E . N otonl ydi d St one' s empl oym entw i th R ockw el l end w el l befor e ei ther e v e n t o c c u rre d , h is E n g in e e rin g O rd e r a d d re ss e d n e ith e r th e f a ilu re o f p o n d c re te w h e n it w as l at erpr oduced norR ockw el l ' s conce al m entof thatfai l ur e fr om the D O E . T he E ng i neeri ng O rderdid not address these po i nts for the si m ple r eason itcou l d n ot address event s thathad noty etoccurr ed. A l though t he di s tr i ctcourt ' s t as k on r emand w as focus ed s ol el yon det erm i ni ng w h e th e r S to n e h a d sa tisf ied th e “ d isc lo su re ” c o m p o n e n t o f th e “ o rig in a l so u rc e ” ru le, its-3-

fi ndi ngs r ei nfor ce the conc l us i ons I r eac hed i n m yor i gi nal di s s ent . Speci fi cal l y , the di s tr i ctcourtfound that , pr i ort o fi l i ng s ui t , the onl yi nform at i on pos s es s ed bySt one and p ro v id e d to th e g o v e rn m e n t co n c e rn in g p o n d c re te w a s th e 1 9 8 2 E n g in e e rin g O rd e r in w hi ch St one opi ned thatthe company ' s pr opos ed des i gn form aki ng pondcr et e w as fl aw ed. T he maj or i tyconcl udes di s cl os ur e of the Engi neer i ng O r dert o the governm ent sat i sfi es the “d i scl osure” com po nen tof the “ori ginal source” rul e. I di sagree. B ecause the Engi neer i ng O r deronl yconvey ed St one' s pr ofes s i onal opi ni on thatthe pr opos ed pondcr et e des i gn w oul d notw or k, the fa ctthathe pr ovi ded a c opyof the Engi neer i ng O r dert o the governm enti n M ar ch 1988 di d nots at i s fythe “di s cl os ur e” c om ponentof the § 3 7 3 0 (e )(4 )(B ) “ o rig in a l so u rc e ” ru le. A sid e f ro m p ro v id in g th e E n g in e e rin g O rd e r to th e g o v e rn m e n t, th e re is n o e v id e n c e th a t, pr io r to su it, S to n e in f o rm e d th e g o v e rn m e n t, o r w a s e v e n a w a re , tha t R o c k w e ll ac tu a llye x p e rie n c e d p ro b lem s w ith its p o n d c re te pr oduct i on and conc eal ed s uch pr obl ems fr om the D O E . T hus , St one ca nnotqual i fyas an “or i gi nal s our ce” and hi s FC A cl ai m s s houl d be di s m i s s ed forl ack of s ubj ectm att er j ur i s di ct i on.UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS T E N T H C IR C U IT
U N IT E D S T A T E S O F A M E R IC A , ex re l. J AM ES S . STON E, a n d UN I TED S T AT E S OF AM E RI CA , Pl ai nt i ffs - A ppel l ees and C ross -A pp el l ants , v. RO CK WEL L I NT E RN AT I ONAL CO RP. , a n d BO EI NG NO RTH A M E R IC A N , IN C ., D efe ndant s - A ppel l ant s and C ross -A pp el l ees. AM E RI CA N HOS P I T AL A SSO CI A TI O N , N A TI O N A L D EFEN SE I NDUS T RI AL AS S OC I AT I ON, ELECTRO NI C I ND USTRI ES ALLI AN CE, A m i ci C ur i ae. N o s . 9 9 -1 3 5 1 , 9 9 -1 3 5 2 , & 99- 1353

OR DE R O N R E HE AR I NG M ar ch 4, 2002T h e H o n o ra b le H e n ryA . P o lit z , U n ited S tate s C irc u it Ju d g e f o r th e F if

th C irc u it, * s i t t i ng bydes i gnat i on.

- 2- B efor e B RI S CO E , HOLL OW AY and POLI TZ , C i rcui tJudg es. *

T h e p e tit io n f

o r re h e a rin g e n b a n c o f

D e f e n d a n ts - A p p e llan ts R o c k w e ll I nt ernat i onal C orp. and B oei ng N or th A m er i can, I nc. , w as ci r cul at ed t o the mem ber s of the pane l and al l ci r cui tj udges of the courti n r egul ars ervi ce. T her e havi ng been no r eques tfora pol l on t he s ugges t i on of r ehea r i ng en banc , thats ugges t i on i s deni ed. T he pet i t i on forr ehea r i ng bythe pane l has been c ons i der ed bythe pane l and i thas been de t erm i ned thatr ehea r i ng i s gr ant ed forthe l i m i t ed purpos e of modi fy i ng the opi ni on and or der i ng a l i m i t ed r emand t o the di s tr i ctcourtas pr ovi ded her ei n. T he l i m i t ed r emand t o the di s tr i ctcourti s forthe purpos e of thatcourtm aki ng fi ndi ngs of fa ctand conc l us i ons con cerni ng the is sue of

dis cl osure pri or t o fil i ng of thi s act i on i n acco rdance w i th the Fals e C l ai m s A ct , conce r ni ng the s al t cr et e, pondcr et e and i rr i gat i on m att er s and anyfur ther pr ocee di ngs i n t he di s tr i ctcourtw hi ch the D i s tr i ctJ udge dee m s nece s s aryi n connec t i on ther ew i th. U pon compl et i on of thos e pr ocee di ngs , a s uppl ement al r ecor d w i l l be tr ans m i t t ed t o thi s courtcont ai ni ng the addi t i onal fi ndi ngs and conc l us i ons m ade on thi s l i m i t ed r emand, and thi s courtw i l l otherw i s e r et ai n j ur i s di ct i on of thi s caus e. See P ent eco Corp. Li m i t ed Partners hi

p v. U ni on C as e Sys t em , I

nc ., 9 2 9 F .2 d 1 5 1 9 , 1 5 2 2 (1 0 th C ir . 1 9 9 1 ).- 3-

O n al l otheri s s ues exce ptthatr equi r i ng the addi t i onal fac tual fi ndi ngs and conc l us i ons on the s al t cr et e, pondcr et e and i r r i gat i on m att er s , the rul i ngs m ade pr evi ous l yi n ouropi ni on ar e undi s turbed. U pon r ece i ptof the s uppl ement al r ecor d of the pr ocee di ngs bel ow , fi nal di s pos i t i on of thes e appe al s w i l l be made. T h e c o u rt’s o p in io n a s m o d if ied o n re h e a rin g b yth e p a n e l is b e in g f iled a lo n g w ith this ord er.

ENT ERE D FOR T HE COURT

P atri ck F ishe r, C lerk

## F I LED Unite d St at e s C ourt o f Appe als Te nt h Ci r c uit 

### M A R 4 2002 

### PATRICK

FIS HER C l erk PU BL I SH UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS

T E N T H C IR C U IT
U N IT E D S T A T E S O F A M E R IC A , ex re l. J AM ES S . STON E, a n d UN I TED S T AT E S OF AM E RI CA , Pl ai nt i ffs - A ppel l ees and C ross -A pp el l ants , v. RO CK WEL L I NT E RN AT I ONAL CO RP. , a n d BO EI NG NO RTH A M E R IC A N , IN C ., D efe ndant s - A ppel l ant s and C ross -A pp el l ees. AM E RI CA N HOS P I T AL A SSO CI A TI O N , N A TI O N A L D EFEN SE I NDUS T RI AL AS S OC I AT I ON, ELECTRO NI C I ND USTRI ES ALLI AN CE, A m i ci C ur i ae. N o s . 9 9 -1 3 5 1 , 9 9 -1 3 5 2 , & 99- 1353

AP P EA L F ROM THE UNI TE D S TA TE S DI S TR I CT COURT

F OR THE DI S TR I CT OF COLORA DO

( D . C . N o. 89- M - 1154) C hr i s t opherJ . K oeni gs ( M i chae l A . W i l l i ams and M i chae l B . C arr ol l , w i th hi m on the bri efs) of W i l l i am s, Y ou l e & K oen i gs, P . C . , D env er, C olor ado , for the A pp el l ants / C ross A ppel l ees R ockw el l I nt ernat i onal C orp. and B oei ng N or th A m er i can, I nc.T h e H o n o ra b le H e n ryA . P o lit z , U n ited S tate s C irc u it Ju d g e f o r th e F if

th C irc u it, * s i t t i ng bydes i gnat i on. - 2 - M a ria L . V u llo (R o b e rt E . M o n tg o m e ry , Jr., M a tth e w C h a v e z , Je a n n ie S . K a n g , P a u l, W ei s s , R i fki nd, W hart on & G arr i s on, N ew Y or k, N ew Y or k; H art l eyD . A l l ey , W heat R i dge, C ol or ado, w i th heron t he br i efs ) of Paul , W ei s s , R i fki nd, W hart on & G arr i s on, N ew Y or k, N ew Y or k, forA ppel l ee/ C r os s - A ppel l antJ ames S. St one. Pet erR . M ai er , C i vi l D i vi s i on, A ppel l at e St aff , U . S. D epart m entof J us t i ce, W as hi ngt on, D .C ., (D a v id W . O g d e n , A c tin g A ss ista n t A tto rn e yG e n e ra l, D o u g las N . L e tter, C iv il Di v i s i o n , App e l l a t e St a f f , U. S. Dep a r t me n to f

J u s t i c e , W a s h i n g t o n , D. C. ; Th o ma s L. St r i ckl and, U ni t ed St at es A t t orney , D enver , C ol or ado, w i th hi m on the br i efs ) , forthe A ppel l ee/ C r os s - A ppel l antU ni t ed St at es of A m er i ca. H erb ert L . F en ster, C . S tanleyD ee s, M ark R . T roy , M cK en n a & C u n eo , L . L . P . , D en v er, C ol or ado; M aur een D . M udr on, A m er i can H os pi t al A s s oci at i on, W as hi ngt on D . C . , fi l ed a bri ef on beh al f of

the A m i ci C uri ae, A m eri can H ospit al A ssoci at i on , N at i on al D efen se I ndus tr i al A s s oci at i on, E l ectr oni c I ndus tr i es A l l i ance . B efor e B RI S CO E , HOLL OW AY and POLI TZ , C i rcui tJudg es. * HOLL OW AY , C i r cui tJ udge.

T hi s appea l comes t o us fr om the l at es tr ound of l i t i gat i on ar i s i ng fr om envi r onm ent al vi ol at i ons thatoccurr ed dur i ng the 1980s atthe R ockyFl at s nucl ear w eapons pl ant( “R ockyFl at s ”) , nearG ol den, C ol or ado. Pr evi ous l y , w e cons i der ed r el at ed ap p ea ls i n U n it ed S tat es e x rel. S ton e v . R o ck w ell Int’l C o rp., N o . 9 4 -63 4 (10 th C ir . ); U n ited S tate s v . R o c k w e ll In t’l C o rp ., N o . 9 6 -1 5 3 0 , 1 2 4 F .3 d 1 1 9 4 (1 0 th C ir. 1 9 9 7 ); U ni t ed St at es ex r el . St one v. R ockw el l I nt ’ l C orp. , N o. 97- 1015 ( 10th C i r . ) ; I n r e Speci al G r and J ury , N o. 98- 1073, 143 F. 3d 565 ( 10th C i r . 1998) ; U ni t ed St at es ex r el . St one v.-3-

R o c k w e ll In t’l C o rp ., N o . 9 8 -1 2 8 3 (1 0 th C ir.); an d U n ited S tate s e x re l. S to n e v . R o c k w e ll I nt ’ l C orp. , 1 7 3 F . 3 d 7 5 7 ( 10th C i r . 1999) . T he i ns t antappea l conce rns Fal s e C l ai m s A ct cl ai m s , 31 U . S. C . §§ 3729 ets eq. ( FC A ) , br oughtbythe G overnm entand J ames S. St one, a qui t am re l at or , agai ns tR ockw el l I nt ernat i onal C orpor at i on and B oei ng N or th A m er i can, I nc. ( “R ockw el l ”) , as w el l as br eac h of contr actand comm on l aw fr aud cl ai m s br oughtby the G overnm ental one. A ft ercar eful cons i der at i on, on r ehea r i ng bythe pane l w e make a l i m i t ed rem and for further fi nd i ng s and co nclusi on s and af fi rm the rem ai ning rul i ng s.

I Fr om 1975 thr ough 1989 R ockw el l oper at ed the R ockyFl at s fac i l i tyforthe D e p a rtm e n t o f

E n e rg y(“ D O E ” ) u n d e r a M a n a g e m e n t an d O p e ra tin g c o n tra c t. U n d e r th is a rra n g e m e n t, R o c k w e ll w a s c o m p e n sa ted o n a “ c o st-p lu s” f e e b a sis , w h e re b yR o c k w e ll w as r ei m bur s ed byD O E for“al l ow abl e cos t s ” i ncurr ed i n oper at i ng the pl antand, once p e r y e a r, re c e iv e d a “ b a se f e e ” c a lcu late d a t a p re -d e ter m in e d p e rc e n tag e o f th e o v e ra ll v alue o f th e c o n tr ac t. In a d d it ion , the m o st si g n ifi ca n t po rt ion o f R o ck w ell ’s compensa t i on fori t s m anage m entof R ockyFl at s came i n the form of an “ aw ar d fee , ” a bonus pai d everys i x m onths . T he amountof thi s bonus w as bas ed on D O E ’ s eval uat i on of R ockw el l ’ s per form ance i n s uch ar eas as gener al m anage m ent , pr oduct i on, and (cr i t i cal l yfor pu rposes of t his app eal ) envi ronm ental , safetyand health o perat i on s. Jam es Stone b egan w orki ng atR ock yF l at s as a Pri ncipal E ng i neer i n the Fac i l i t i es, E ngi neer i ng and C ons truct i on D i vi s i on, on N ovember10, 1980. H e w as pr om ot ed t o the-4-

pos i t i on of Lead Pr i nci pal E ngi neerforR ockyFl at s ’ U t i l i tyD es i gn D epart m ent , Faci l i t i es E ngi neer i ng D i vi s i on, w her e he w or ked unt i l M ar ch 1986, w hen he w as l ai d off. O n J une 25, 1987, aft erhe had be en l ai d off byR ockw el l , St one i nform ed Speci al A gentJ on S. L i ps kyof the Feder al B ur eau of I nves t i gat i ons aboutenvi r onm ent al cr i m es th a t h a d a lleg e d lyo c c u rre d a t R o c k yF lats d u rin g S to n e ’s te n u re th e re . E x p lain in g to A gentL i ps kythathe had ha d “unl i m i t ed ac ces s ” atR ockyFl at s , St one r el at ed a va r i etyof al l egat i ons , i ncl udi ng, i nt eral i a, thatcontr aryt o publ i c know l edge, R ockyFl at s acc ept ed h az ard o u s an d n u clea r w aste f rom o ther D O E fa cil it ies; that R o ck w ell em p loy ee s w ere “forbi dden fr om di s cus s i ng anycontr over s i es i n fr ontof a D O E empl oy ee” ; thatal though R ockyFl at s ’ fl ui d bed i nci ner at or s fai l ed t es t i ng i n 1981, the pi l oti nci ner at orr emai ned on l i ne and w as us ed t o i nci ner at e w as t es dai l ys i nce 1981, i ncl udi ng pl ut oni um w as t es w hi ch w er e then s entoutforbur i al ; thatR ockw el l di s t i l l ed and f r act i onat ed var i ous oi l s and s ol vent s al though t he w as t es w er e gea r ed fori nci ner at i on; thatSt one bel i eved thatthe gr ound w at erw as cont ami nat ed fr om pr evi ous w as t e bur i al and l and appl i cat i on, and that haza r dous w as t e l agoons t ended t o over fl ow dur i ng and af t er“a good r ai n, ” ca us i ng haza r dous w as t es t o be di s char ged w i thoutfi r s tbei ng tr eat ed. I I A pp. at457- 59. U s i ng the i nform at i on he had l earned fr om St one, A gentL i ps kys oughtand re c e iv e d a s e a rc h w a rr a n t to s e a rc h R o c k yF la ts . II I A p p . a t 7 7 8 -7 8 7 (L ip s k yA f f id a v it) . P u rsu a n t to th is s e a rc h w a rra n t, on Ju n e 6 , 1 9 8 9 , se v e n tyf iv e F B I a n d E P A a g e n ts conduct ed a s ear ch of RockyFl at s . T hr ee da y s aft erR ockyFl at s had bee n s ear ched, A gentL i ps ky ’ s aff

i davi tw as uns eal ed, pr om pt i ng i nt ens e medi a cove r age of the-5-

envi r onm ent al vi ol at i ons al l eged ther ei n. See, e. g. , B ruce Fi nl ey& T hom as G r af, “R ocky Fl at s i l l egal l ybur ned, dum ped w as t e, U . S. cl ai m s , ” D enverPost , J une 10, 1989; Sue L i nds ay& J anetD ay , “FB I : Fl at s burned w as t e s ecr et l y , ” R ockyM ount ai n N ew s , J une 10, 1989. A v a ilin g h im s e lf o f th e q u i ta m p ro v is io n o f th e F a ls e C la im s A c t, 3 1 U .S .C . § 3730( b) ( 1) ( “A per s on m aybr i ng a ci vi l act i on fora vi ol at i on of s ect i on 3729 forthe per s on and forthe U ni t ed St at es governm ent . T he ac t i on s hal l be br oughti n the name of th e G o v e rn m e n t.”), o n Ju ly5 , 1 9 8 9 S to n e f iled th e c o m p lain t th a t f o rm s th e b a sis f

o r th is appea l . T he compl ai nt , fi l ed i n camer a and unde rs eal , s t at ed an FC A cl ai m al l egi ng t hat R o c k w e ll, w h ile m a n a g in g R o c k yF lats , co n c e a led e n v iro n m e n tal, sa f e ty , an d h e a lth pr obl ems fr om D O E thr oughoutthe 1980s . I A pp. at81. I tal l eged thatfr om atl eas tas e a rlya s N o v e m b e r 1 9 8 0 , R o c k w e ll h a d b e e n leg a llyre q u ire d to c o m p lyw ith c e rta in f e d e r a l a n d s t a t e r e g u l a t i o n s , s t a tu t e s , l a ws , a n d a g r e e me n t s , i n c l u d i n g , i n t e ra l i a : DOE O r der5483. 1, as s uper s eded by5483. 1A , forO ccupa t i onal Safetyand H eal th Pr ogr am for G overnm ent - O w ned C ontr act or - O per at ed fa ci l i t i es ; D O E O r der6430. 1, the D O E G ener al D es i gn C r i t er i a M anual , and D O E O r der5480. 2; C ol or ado s t atut es , i ncl udi ng H aza r dous Subst ance s , C ol o. R ev. St at . §§ 25- 5- 501 ets eq. , the A i rQ ual i tyC ontr ol Pr ogr am, C ol o. R ev. St at . §§ 25- 7- 101 ets eq. , A s bes t os C ontr ol , C ol o. R ev. St at . §§ 25- 7- 501 ets eq. , t he C o lo ra d o H a z a rd o u s W a ste A c t, C o lo . R e v . S tat. § § 2 5 -1 5 -1 0 1 e t se q ., th e W a ter Q u a lity C ontr ol A ct , C ol o. R ev. St at . §§ 25- 8- 201 ets eq. , R adi at i on C ontr ol , C ol o. R ev. St at . §§ 2 5 -1 1 -1 0 1 e t s e q ., H a z a rd o u s S u b s ta n c e In c id e n ts , C o lo . R e v . S ta t. § § 2 9 -2 2 -1 0 1 e t s e q .,-6-

a n d o th e r sp e c if

ic p ro v isio n s d e f

in in g p ro h ib ited a c ts a n d re p o rtin g re q u ire m e n ts w ith r es pectt o haza r dous s ubs t ance s , i ncl udi ng, C ol o. R ev. St at . §§ 25- 5- 503, 25- 8- 506 & 608, 2 5 -1 5 -0 8 , 3 0 9 , 3 1 0 , 2 9 -2 2 -1 0 1 & 1 0 8 ; f e d e ra l sta tu tes , inc lu d in g th e O c c u p a tio n a l S a f e ty and H eal th A ct , 29 U . S. C . §§ 651 ets eq. , the A t om i c Ener gyA ctof 1954, as amended, 42 U .S .C . § § 2 0 1 1 e t s e q ., th e E n e rg yR e o rg a n iz a tio n A c t o f 1 9 7 4 , 4 2 U .S .C . § § 5 8 0 1 e t s e q ., th e W a ter P o llu tio n P re v e n tio n a n d C o n tro l A c t, 33 U .S .C . § § 1 2 5 1 e t se q ., th e C lea n A ir Ac t , 4 2 U. S . C. § § 7 4 0 1 e ts e q . , th e Re s o u r c e Co n s e r v a t i o n a n d Re c o v e ryAc t , 4 2 U. S . C. §§ 6901 ets eq. , the Safe D r i nki ng W at erA ct , 42 U . S. C . §§ 300f ets eq. , and fe der al r egul at i ons appl i cabl e orenac t ed underthes e s t atut es . I A pp. at87- 89. St one al l eged thatR ockw el l comm i t t ed numer ous vi ol at i ons of the above s t at ed l aw s and r egul at i ons i n connec t i on w i th i t s oper at i on of R ockyFl at s , and that“[i ] n or der t o i nduce the governm entt o m ake pa ym ent s orappr oval s , ” R ockw el l vi ol at ed § 3729( a) of the FC A by , i nt eral i a, know i ngl ypr es ent i ng orcaus i ng t o be pr es ent ed t o an off i ceror empl oy ee of

the U ni t ed St at es governm ent , fal s e and f r audul entcl ai m s forpaym entor appr oval , i ncl udi ng r eques t s ors t at ement s forpaym ent , s t at ement s forr ei m bur s ementof c o s t s , a n d a p p l i c a t i o n s f o rb o n u s e s i n c o n n e c t i o n wi th o ru n d e rth e Ro c k we l l - DOE contr act s ; and know i ngl ym aki ng, us i ng, orcaus i ng t o be made orus ed, fal s e r ecor ds or s t at ement s i nt ended t o obt ai n appr oval and paym entof thes e moni es . I A pp. at89- 90. In c o m p lian c e w ith § 3 7 3 0 (b )(2 ) o f th e F C A , S to n e f

iled h is c o m p lain t in c a m e ra a n d p ro v id e d to th e G o v e rn m e n t a d isc lo su re sta tem e n t re latin g “ su b sta n tiallya ll m at er i al evi dence and i nform at i on” r el at ed t o hi s cl ai m i n hi s pos s es s i on. T he r el evant-7-

por t i ons of thi s D i s cl os ur e St at ementar e di s cus s ed i n Par tI I , i nfr a. I I A pp. at491 ( Pl ai nt i ff’ s C onfi dent i al D i s cl os ur e St at ementof M at er i al E vi dence and I nform at i on) . T he U ni t ed St at es , how ever , gave not i ce de cl i ni ng t o i nt ervene i n the ac t i on, though i tr es erved the r i ghtt o i nt ervene a ta l at erdat e upon a s how i ng of good ca us e. I A pp. at114- 15. W hi l e St one’ s FC A cl ai m w as pr ocee di ng, i n M ar ch 1992, i n the cul m i nat i on of a s epar at e cr i m i nal i nves t i gat i on i nt o R ockw el l ’ s m anage m entof R ockyFl at s , R ockw el l and the U ni t ed St at es ent er ed i nt o a pl ea a gr eementunderw hi ch R ockw el l pl ed gui l tyt o t en envi r onm ent al vi ol at i ons . V I A pp. at1861. Speci fi cal l y , R ockw el l ’ s pl ea a dm i t t ed know i ng s t or age of

m i xed haz ar dous w as t es ( pondcr et e and s al t cr et e) , i n vi ol at i on of the R es our ce Conservat i on and R ecove ryA ct( R C R A ) , 42 U . S. C . § 6928( d) ( 2) ( C ) ; know i ng sto ra g e o f

m ix e d h a z a rd o u s w a ste s (p o n d c re te a n d sa ltcre te) w ith o u t a p e rm it o r in ter im s t atus , i n vi ol at i on of the R C R A , 42 U . S. C . § 6928( d) ( 2) ( A ) ; know i ng tr eatm entand sto ra g e o f

m ix e d h a z a rd o u s w a ste s (c o n c e n tra ted sa lt b rin e ) w ith o u t a p e rm it o r in ter im s t atus , i n vi ol at i on of R C R A , 42 U . S. C . § 6928( d) ( 2) ( A ) ; know i ng s t or age of m i xed haza r dous w as t es ( vacuum fi l t ers l udge) w i thouta perm i tori nt er i m s t atus , i n vi ol at i on of th e RC RA , 4 2 U. S . C. § 6 9 2 8 ( d ) ( 2 ) ( A) ; n e g l i g e n tv i o l a t i o n o f th e Cl e a n Wa t e rAc t( CWA) perm i tcondi t i ons ( i ndus tr i al w as t es t o the s ew age tr eatm entpl ant ) , i n vi ol at i on of the CWA, 3 3 U. S . C. § 1 3 1 9 ( c ) ( 1 ) ( A) ; n e g l i g e n tv i o l a t i o n o f CWA p e r mi tc o n d i t i o n s ( BO D vi ol at i ons , M ar ch 1988) , i n vi ol at i on of the C W A , 33 U . S. C . § 1319( c) ( 1) ( A ) ; negl i gent v io latio n o f

th e C W A p e rm it co n d iti o n s (B O D /F e c a l C o lifo rm v io latio n s, A p ril 1 9 8 8 ), in v io latio n o f

th e C W A , 3 3 U .S .C . § 1 3 1 9 (c )(1 )(A ); n e g lig e n t v io latio n o f C W A p e rm it-8-

co n d it ion s (B O D v iolati o n s, M ay1 9 8 8 ), in v iolati o n o f 3 3 U . S . C . § 1 3 1 9 (c)(1)(A ); k n o wi n g v i o l a t i o n o f

CWA p e r mi tc o n d i t i o n s ( s p r a yi rr i g a t i o n ) , i n v i o l a t i o n o f th e CWA, 3 3 U .S .C . § 1 3 1 9 (c )(2 )(A ); a n d n e g lig e n t v io latio n o f C W A p e rm it co n d iti o n s (c h ro m ic aci d s pi l l ) , i n vi ol at i on of the C W A , 33 U . S. C . § 1319( c) ( 1) ( A ) . A s partof i t s pl ea, R ockw el l agr eed t o pay$18, 500, 000 i n fi nes . V I A pp. at1861- 63. T h e F C A sp e c if

ies th a t co u rts la c k ju risd ictio n o v e r F C A c laim s b a se d o n p u b lic i nform at i on unl es s “the per s on br i ngi ng the ac t i on i s an or i gi nal s our ce of the i nform at i on. ” 31 U . S. C . § 3730( e) ( 4) ( A ) ( “N o courts hal l have j ur i s di ct i on overan ac t i on u n d e r t h is s e c tio n b a s e d u p o n th e p u b lic d is c lo s u re o f a lle g a tio n s o r t ra n s a c tio n s . . . unl es s the ac t i on i s br oughtbythe A t t orneyG ener al orthe per s on br i ngi ng the ac t i on i s an or i gi nal s our ce of

the i nform at i on. ”) . T he FC A defi nes an “or i gi nal s our ce” as “an i ndi vi dual w ho has di r ectand i ndepende ntknow l edge of the i nform at i on on w hi ch the al l egat i ons ar e bas ed and ha s vol unt ar i l ypr ovi ded the i nform at i on t o the G overnm ent b e f o re f ilin g a n a c tio n u n d e r t h is s e c tio n w h ic h is b a s e d o n th e in f o rm a tio n .” 3 1 U .S .C . § 3730( e) ( 4) ( B ) . I n D ece m ber1992, R ockw el l fi l ed a mot i on t o di s m i s s St one’ s compl ai nt fo r l ac k o f su b

ject m att er jurisdicti o n o n the g rou n d that S ton e f ail ed to sa ti sfythe F C A ’s re q u ir e m e n t th a t h e b e a n “ o ri g in a l s o u rc e .” I n r es pons e, on February27, 1993, St one s ubm i t t ed an a ddi t i onal aff i davi tand a ttac h e d to it h is o rig in a l D isc lo su re S tate m e n t. W e d isc u ss th e re lev a n t p o rtio n s o f th is a f f id a v it i n P a rt II, in f

ra . O n F e b ru a ry2 , 1 9 9 4 th e trial ju d g e d e n ied R o c k w e ll’s m o tio n to d ism iss, fin d ing that “M r. S ton e h ad d ir ec t and ind ep en d en t kn o w ledg e tha t R o ck w ell ’sA ft erthe U ni t ed St at es i nt ervened, the tr i al j udge s ugges t ed thatan amended 1 compl ai ntbe fi l ed t o cl ar i fythe foc us of the cl ai m s . Supp. A pp. at88- 89 ( “N ow , I have n o t e d , a s a l r e a d yh a s b e e n d e s c r i b e d , th a tth e r e a r e s o r to f s i x a r e a s , o rth e s c o p e o f c l a i ms thatM r . St one has pr es ent l yi n t he pl eadi ngs has s i x di ffe r entar eas of i nt er es t , w her eas the governm enthas t al ked aboutthr ee appar ent l ys o far . So t hat ’ s the s tuff thatneeds clarificati o n in the am en d ed co m p lai n t . . . . ”). -9- c o m p e n sa tio n w a s lin k e d to its c o m p lian c e w ith e n v iro n m e n tal, h e a lth a n d sa f e ty re g u latio n s a n d th a t ita lleg e d lyc o n c e a led its d e f icie n t p e rf

o rm a n c e so th a t itw o u ld c o n tin u e to re c e iv e p a ym e n ts .” IV A p p . a t 8 9 3 -9 6 . O n N ovember14, 1995, the U ni t ed St at es m oved t o i nt ervene w i th r es pectt o s om e, butnotal l of St one’ s FC A al l egat i ons , and on N ovember19, 1996, the tr i al courtgr ant ed th e m o tio n to in ter v e n e . IV A p p . at 9 0 0 (T h e G o v e rn m e n t’s M o tio n F o r L e a v e to Interv en e); i d . at 96 4 (M em o ran d u m O p inion an d O rde r). O n D ece m ber20, 1996, i n r es pons e t o a s ugges t i on fr om the tr i al j udge, the U ni t ed 1 S t at es and S t on e (“Pl ai nti ffs”) fi l ed an am end ed co m plai nt s t at i ng si x co un t s agai nst R o c k w e ll. I V A p p . a t 9 7 2 . C o u n t O n e s ta te d a c la im u n d e r t h e F C A , 3 1 U .S .C . § 3 7 2 9 (a )(1 ) & (2 ), b ro u g h t b yb o th th e U n ited S tate s a n d S to n e . IV A p p . at 9 9 5 . C o u n ts T w o thr ough Fi ve s t at ed cl ai m s forcomm on l aw fr aud, br eac h of contr act , paym entby m i s t ake of

fac t , and unj us tenr i chment , and w er e br oughtbythe U ni t ed St at es al one. I d. at 9 9 6 - 1 0 0 3 . I n Co u n tS i x , S t o n e ( b u tn o tth e Un i t e d S t a t e s ) , a s s e r t e d a n a d d i t i o n a l F CA cl ai m al l egi ng thatR ockw el l know i ngl ypr es ent ed orcaus ed t o be pr es ent ed t o the G overnm entfal s e orfr audul entcl ai m s form oneyorpr operty . I d. at1004. T he tr i al j udge s ubs equent l yor der ed thata s epar at e tr i al be hel d on thi s cl ai m . V I A pp. at1621.-10-

A j urytr i al w as hel d on C ount s O ne thr ough Fi ve. T he mai n i s s ue attr i al w as wh e th e rRo c k we l l c o n c e a l e d f r o m DOE e n v i r o n me n t a l , s a f e ty , a n d h e a l th p r o b l e ms r el at ed t o the pr oces s i ng and s t or age of s al t cr et e and pondc r et e, tw o form s of pr oces s ed to x ic w a ste . R e g a rd in g th e F C A c laim s, th e ju ryw a s g iv e n a v e rd ict f o rm th a t as k e d it t o ans w erthe ques t i on: “D i d t he pl ai nt i ffs pr ove bya pr eponder ance of the evi dence thatt he defe ndantR ockw el l I nt ernat i onal C orpor at i on vi ol at ed the Fal s e C l ai m s A ctt o getone or m or e of the fol l ow i ng cl ai m s underthe D epart m entof Ener gy - R ockw el l contr act s pai d or appr oved?” I V A pp. at1119. T he ver di ctform r equi r ed the j uryt o ans w erthatques t i on foreac h of t en s i x- m onth per i ods , runni ng fr om O ct ober1, 1986, thr ough D ece m ber30, 1 9 8 9 , ea c h c o rre sp o n d in g to a n “ A w a rd F e e P e rio d ” o r a p e rio d f o r w h ich R o c k w e ll r ece i ved “V oucher s A ccount i ng forN etE xpendi tur es A ccrued. ” I d. at1119- 20. O n A pr i l 1, 1999, the j uryr eturned ver di ct s forR ockw el l on the br eac h of contr act cl ai m and on s even of

the t en FC A cl ai m s . H ow ever , the j uryfound forthe Pl ai nt i ffs on the thr ee r emai ni ng FC A cl ai m s and aw ar ded $1, 390, 775. 80 i n damages . I d. A ft erthe j uryver di ct , w hen the Pl ai nt i ffs t ender ed a pr opos ed form of j udgm entthati ncl uded St one as a partyi n w hos e fa vorj udgm ents houl d be ent er ed, R ockw el l fi l ed a pos t - tr i al me mo r a n d u m a r g u i n g th a tS t o n e wa s n o ta n “ o r i g i n a l s o u r c e ” f o rh i s a me n d e d F CA cl ai m s and thus w as notent i t l ed t o j udgm entbei ng ent er ed i n hi s favorort o r ecove r att orney ’ s fee s and expe ns es . I n r es pons e, the tr i al j udge found thatSt one w as an or i gi nalT he tr i al j udge not ed, how ever , thatR ockw el l coul d appea l thatdet erm i nat i on; 2 thus , w hen St one fi l ed mot i ons s eeki ng att orney ’ s fee s and expe ns es , the tr i al j udge r es erved rul i ng unt i l aft erappea l s on the gr ounds thatan appe al “mayw el l aff ectthe det erm i nat i on of thes e mot i ons . ” V I A pp. at1570 ( O r derR es ervi ng R ul i ng O n M ot i ons F o r F ee s an d E x p en ses). -11- s our ce. 2 O n M ay13 , 19 99 , the d i stri ctcou rtdis m i ssed w i th p rej ud i ce t he U nit ed S t at es’ c laim s f o r c o m m o n law f

ra u d , p a ym e n t b ym ista k e o f f a c t, an d u n

ju st e n ric h m e n t, his or ders t at i ng: A ta hea r i ng hel d on M ay7, 1999, bas ed on al l of the evi dence r ece i ved at tr i al , the courtrul ed that , as a mat t erof l aw , j udgm ents houl d ent erforthe defe ndant s on t he equi t abl e cl ai m s of the U ni t ed St at es forunj us tenr i chment and r ecove r yof paym ent s m ade bym i s t ake be caus e the r emedyw oul d be i ncons i s t entw i th the j uryver di ctforthe def endant s on the cl ai m forbr eac h of co ntr act . T he co urtal so rul ed thatj ud gm ent s ho uld ent er for defend ants , as a mat t erof l aw , underFed. R . C i v. P. 50( a) on the cl ai m of the U ni t ed S tate s f o r d a m a g e s f

o r c o m m o n law f

ra u d , a c laim th a t w a s n o t su b m itt e d to the j urybeca us e the governm entw i thdr ew i t . I n the al t ernat i ve, cons i der i ng the or al m ot i on t o w i thdr aw as a mot i on underFed. R . C i v. P. 41( a) ( 2) , the courtor der s thatdi s m i s s al of the cl ai m m us tbe w i th pr ej udi ce. A ccor di ngl y , on J une 10, 1999, the di s tr i ctcourtent er ed j udgm enti n favorof the Pl ai nt i ffs on the thr ee FC A cl ai m s i n the amountof $4, 172, 327 ( aw ar di ng thr ee t i m es t he amount aw ar ded bythe j urypur s uantt o 31 U . S. C . § 3729( a) ) . T he courtal s o aw ar ded the U nit ed S t at es a $15 , 00 0 civi l pen al ty . A l tho ug h o ne o f S t on e’s F C A cl ai m s agai nst R ockw el l had y ett o be tr i ed, the di s tr i ctcourtcert i fi ed i t s j udgm enton the j uryver di ct u n d e r F e d . R . C iv . P . 5 4 (b ). R ockw el l then fi l ed thi s appea l , ar gui ng that : ( 1) the tr i al courterr ed i n fi ndi ng t hat-12-

S ton e w as a n “o ri g inal so u rce ” o f th e inf o rm ati o n o n w h ich h is FC A all eg ati o n s w ere b a se d ; (2 ) q u i tam re lato rs d o n o t h a v e sta n d in g u n d e r A rticle III o f th e U .S . C o n stitu tio n ; ( 3) the FC A ’ s qui t am provi s i ons vi ol at e the Take C ar e and A ppoi nt m ent s C l aus es of Ar t i c l e I I o f

th e Co n s t i tu t i o n ; a n d ( 4 ) th e tr i a l c o u r te rr e d i n i n s tru c t i n g th e j u ryth a tDOE empl oy ees ’ know l edge of the fa ct s al l egedl yconce al ed fr om the D O E w as r el evantt o the F C A claim s o n lyif su ch em p loy ee s h ad “a u tho ri tyto ac t” un d er the G o v ern m en t’ s contr act s w i th R ockw el l . T he Pl ai nt i ffs fi l ed cr os s - appea l s , St one ar gui ng thata new t r i al is r eq u ir ed to aw ard fu rth er d am ag es u n d er the F C A , an d the G o v ern m en t argu ing that: ( 1 ) the di s tr i ctcourterr ed i n fai l i ng t o i ns tructthe j urythatR ockw el l br eac hed i t s contr act w i th D O E ; and ( 2) the di s tr i ctcourterr ed i n di s m i s s i ng w i th pr ej udi ce i t s comm on l aw fr aud ac t i on.

II A R ockw el l ’ s fi r s tcl ai m of err ori s thatthe tr i al courterr ed i n rul i ng thatSt one w as an “or i gi nal s our ce” of the i nform at i on on w hi ch hi s FC A al l egat i ons w er e bas ed. T he FC A s peci fi es thatcourt s do nothave j ur i s di ct i on overcl ai m s bas ed on publ i cl ydi s cl os ed i nform at i on “unl es s the ac t i on i s br oughtbythe A t t orneyG ener al , ” or as appl i es her e, “the per s on br i ngi ng the ac t i on i s an or i gi nal s our ce of the i nform at i on. ”3 1 U .S .C . § 3 7 3 0 (e )(4 )(A ) p ro v id e s in f u ll: 3 N o courts hal l have j ur i s di ct i on overan ac t i on under thi s s ect i on bas ed upon publ i c di s cl os ur e of a l l egat i ons or tr ans act i ons i n a cr i m i nal , ci vi l , oradmi ni s tr at i ve hea r i ng, i n a congr es s i onal , admi ni s tr at i ve, orG overnm entA ccount i ng O ffi ce r eport , hear i ng, audi t , ori nves t i gat i on, orfr om the new s m edi a, unl es s the ac t i on i s br oughtbythe A t t orney G ener al orthe per s on br i ngi ng the ac t i on i s an or i gi nal s our ce o f th e in f o rm a tio n . -13- 31 U . S. C . § 3730( e) ( 4) ( A ) ( emphasi s added) . A n “or i gi nal s our ce” i s defi ned as one w ho 3 “h as d ir ec t and ind ep en d en t kn o w ledg e o f th e inf o rm ati o n o n w h ich th e a ll eg ati o n s are bas ed and ha s vol unt ar i l ypr ovi ded the i nform at i on t o the G overnm entbefor e fi l i ng an a c tio n u n d e r t h is s e c tio n w h ic h is b a s e d o n th e in f o rm a tio n .” Id . a t § 3 7 3 0 (e )( 4 )( B ). R ockw el l chal l enges as err orthe di s tr i ctcourt ’ s det erm i nat i on ( m ade bytw o j udges , once i n 1994 and aga i n i n 1999) , thatSt one w as an “or i gi nal s our ce” of the i nform at i on on w hi ch hi s FC A cl ai m s w er e bas ed. B eca us e thi s i nvol ves a ques t i on of s ubj ectm att erj ur i s di ct i on, w e conduc tour r evi ew de novo. U ni t ed St at es ex r el . H aft erv. Spectrum E m er gencyC ar e, I nc. , 190 F. 3d 1156, 1160 ( 10th C i r . 1999) ( “Thi s court. . . r evi ew s i s s ues of s ubj ectm att erj ur i s di ct i on de novo. ”) ( ci t i ng U ni t ed St at es . ex r el . Pr eci s i on C o. v. K och I ndus . , I nc. , 971 F. 2d 548, 551 ( 10th C i r . 1992) ) . Si nce Rockw el l has chal l enged the court ’ s j ur i s di ct i on, the bur den is o n S to n e to s h o w , b ya p re p o n d e ra n c e o f th e e v id e n c e , th a t ju ri s d ic tio n e x is ts . Id . St one mustther efor e s us t ai n “the bur den of a l l egi ng the fa ct s es s ent i al t o s how j ur i s di ct i on a n d s u p p o rt in g th o s e f

a c ts w ith c o m p e te n t p ro o f.” Id . (i n te rn a l q u o ta tio n s o m itte d ). “M er e conc l us oryal l egat i ons of j ur i s di ct i on ar e notenough. ” I d. ( quot i ng Pent eco Corp.-14-

L td . P a rt n e rs h ip v . U n io n G a s S y s . In c ., 9 2 9 F .2 d 1 5 1 9 , 1 5 2 1 (1 0 th C ir . 1 9 9 1 )) .
B A s an i ni t i al m att er , w e mustcons i derSt one’ s cont ent i on thatonce the G overnm ent i nt ervenes , as happene d her e, the tr i al court ’ s j ur i s di ct i on i s concl us i vel yes t abl i s hed and the or i gi nal s our ce r equi r ementcea s es t o oper at e, on the theorythatthe ca s e maypr ocee d byvi r tue of the G overnm ent ’ s pr es ence i n the l i t i gat i on. W e di s agr ee. I nt ervent i on byt he U ni t ed St at es i nt o a qui t am sui tdoes notaut om at i cal l yendow the courtw i th s ubj ect m att erj ur i s di ct i on overboth t he cl ai m s bythe U ni t ed St at es and bythe r el at or . W e agr ee w i th the Fi fth C i r cui t ’ s per s uas i ve ana l y s i s w hi ch r ej ect ed a r el at or ’ s att empt “t o end- run the ‘ or i gi nal s our ce’ i nqui r ybyar gui ng thatthe U ni t ed St at es ’ i nt ervent i on i n the ac t i on cured an yj uri sdi ct i on al defe ct . ” T hat courtheld, and w e agree, that i n these ci r cumst ance s [s ] uch i nt ervent i on does not. . confe rs ubj ectm att erj ur i s di ct i on overthe re la to r’ s c la im s . S u c h a re a d in g o f th e ju ri s d ic tio n a l b a r o f 3 1 U .S .C . § 3 7 3 0 (e )(4 ) ig n o re s th e F a lse C laim s A c t’s g o a l o f p re v e n tin g p a ra sitic s u its based o n inform at i on dis cov ered byother s. Indeed , un der [plai nti ff’s] i nt erpr et at i on, the U ni t ed St at es ’ i nt ervent i on w oul d cur e the j ur i s di ct i onal defe ct s i n al l s ui t s , even thos e br oughtbyi ndi vi dual s w ho di s cover ed the defe ndant ’ s fr aud byr eadi ng abouti ti n the morni ng paper . T he l egi s l at i ve hi s t oryand pol i cybehi nd the A ctr efut e s uch a r eadi ng. Feder al R ecove r ySer vi ces , I nc. v. U ni t ed St at es , 72 F. 3d 447, 452 ( 5th C i r . 1995) ; s ee al s o E i t el v. U ni t ed St at es , 242 F. 3d 381 ( 9th C i r . , 2000) ( “W hetherornotthe governm ent p roc ee d s w ith this acti o n [th e re lat o r] can n o t bec au se h e is n o t an o ri g inal so u rce . ”).J u d g e Ca r r i g a n f o u n d th a tS t o n e h a d b e e n g i v e n “ a d o c u me n ts t a t i n g th a t‘ DOE 4 w ill n o t ev e n c o n sid e r a n a w a rd f e e if w e d o n o t p e rf

o rm a t lea st a t a s a tisf

a c to rylev e l in a ll 3 7 F P A s,’ in c lu d in g N u c lea r M a ter ials M a n a g e m e n t, W a ste M a n a g e m e n t, H e a lth Pr ot ect i on, I ndus tr i al Safetyand Envi r onm ent al Pr ot ect i on. ” O r derat4. -15- A ccor di ngl y , w e turn t o t he mer i t s of w hetherSt one s uffi ci ent l ydemonstr at ed h im se lf to b e a n o rig in a l so u rc e o f h is a lleg a tio n s a g a in st R o c k w e ll.

C O n tw o o c c a sio n s R o c k w e ll ch a llen g e d S to n e ’s s tatu s a s a n o rig in a l so u rc e : f irst, in a Fed. R . C i v. P. 12( b) ( 1) m ot i on t o di s m i s s forl ack of s ubj ectm att erj ur i s di ct i on i n 1994, a n d th e n a g a in in M a y1 9 9 9 , af ter th e ju ryh a d re tu rn e d a v e rd ict f o r th e p lain tiff

s. B o th t i m es the courtrul ed thatSt one w as an or i gi nal s our ce. O n the fi r s tocca s i on the tr i al j udge, J udge C arr i gan, though acknow l edgi ng that S to n e h a d c o n c e d e d th a t h e c o u ld id e n tifyn e ith e r th e in d iv id u a ls w h o h a d a lleg e d ly fal s el yt ol d the G overnm entthatR ockw el l w as i n compl i ance w i th envi r onm ent al , heal th, and safetyl aw s, no r the spec i fi c do cum ents con t ai ning t hese al l eged m i sr epresent at i on s, rul ed thatSt one nonethel es s qual i fi ed as an or i gi nal s our ce. I V A pp. at892- 94 ( O r derat 3 -4 ). Ju d g e C a rrig a n b a se d h is ru lin g o n h is f in d in g th a t S to n e ’s d u ties a t R o c k yF lats i ncl uded “pl ant - w i de tr oubl es hoot i ng thr ough w hi ch he ga i ned know l edge of var i ous envi r onm ent al , heal th and s afe typr obl ems, ” and thatSt one had be en “i nform ed that R o c k w e ll’s c o m p e n sa tio n w a s b a se d o n c o m p lian c e w ith a p p lica b le e n v iro n m e n tal, h e a lth and s afe tyr egul at i ons . ” I d. at893. Fur ther , J udge C arr i gan found thatSt one had be en 4 i ns truct ed byR ockw el l “nott o di vul ge envi r onm ent al , heal th and s afe typr obl ems t o the-16-

D O E . ” Id. C on sequen t l y , the judge rul ed thatgiven t hese findi ng s, ther e i s evi dence thatM r . St one had di r ectand i ndepende ntknow l edge that R o c k w e ll’s c o m p e n sa tio n w a s lin k e d to its c o m p lian c e w ith e n v iro n m e n tal, heal th and s afe tyr egul at i ons and thati tal l egedl yconce al ed i t s defi ci ent per form ance s o thati tw oul d cont i nue t o r ece i ve paym ent s . T he fa ctthat M r . St one w as notaw ar e of the s peci fi c per s ons ordocument s i nvol ved does noter as e thi s know l edge. I d. at893- 94. A ccor di ngl y , J udge C arr i gan conc l uded thatSt one pos s es s ed “di r ectand i ndepende ntknow l edge” of the i nform at i on on w hi ch hi s al l egat i ons w er e bas ed. O r derat 4- 5. J udge C arr i gan deni ed R ockw el l ’ s m ot i on t o di s m i s s forl ack of s ubj ectm att er j ur i s di ct i on. I d. at6- 7. I n A pr i l 1999, a j uryr eturned a ve r di ctforpl ai nt i ffs on thes e cl ai m s of vi ol at i on of th e F a ls e C la im s A c t, a w a rd in g c o m p e n s a to ry d a m a g e s o f $ 1 ,3 9 0 ,7 7 5 o n th o s e c la im s . T he j uryfound forthe def endanton the s even otherFal s e C l ai m s A ctcl ai m s and on the G overnm entcl ai m forbr eac h of contr act . T he ca s e w as then bef or e C hi ef J udge M at s ch, and he ad hered t o Jud ge C arr i gan ’s rul i ng that St on e w as a proper qui t am rel at or and a l so t o hi s r ej ect i on of the cha l l enge t o t he cons t i tut i onal i tyof the qui t am st atut e. A s not ed, t o qual i fyas an or i gi nal s our ce a r el at orm us tes t abl i s h ( 1) thathe p o ss e ss e d d ire c t an d in d e p e n d e n t k n o w led g e o f th e in f o rm a tio n o n w h ich h is c laim is b a se d , an d (2 ) th a t h e v o lu n tar ilyc o n v e y e d th e in f o rm a tio n to th e G o v e rn m e n t p rio r to fil ing su it . 3 1 U . S . C . § 3 7 3 0 (e)(4)(B ). R o ck w ell ch all en g es th e su ff ici en cyo f S ton e’s show i ng on bo th these r equ i rem ents .-17- D W e have expl ai ned thatforpurpos es of det erm i ni ng w hethera r el at orqual i fi es as a n o rig in a l so u rc e , the F C A ’s d ire c t an d in d e p e n d e n t k n o w led g e re q u ire m e n t is p ro p e rly cons trued t o m ean thatthe know l edge pos s es s ed bythe r el at orm us tbe “mar ked bythe a b s e n c e o f

a n i n t e r v e n i n g a g e n c y. . . [ a n d ] u n me d i a t e d b ya n yth i n g b u tth e r e l a t o r ’ s o wn l abor . ” U ni t ed St at es ex r el . H aft erv. Spectrum E m er gencyC ar e, 190 F. 3d 1156, 1162 (1 0 th C ir. 1 9 9 9 ) (q u o tin g U n ited S tate s v . M K -F e rg u so n C o ., 9 9 F .3 d 1 5 3 8 , 1 5 4 7 (1 0 th C i r . 1996) ) ( al t ernat i ons i n or i gi nal ) . I n otherw or ds , “di r ectknow l edge i s know l edge g a in e d b yth e re lato r’s o w n e f f o rts a n d n o t ac q u ire d f

ro m th e lab o rs o f

o th e rs,” w h ile i ndepende ntknow l edge means that“the r el at or ’ s know l edge mustnotbe der i vat i ve of the i nform at i on of other s , even i f thos e other s m ayqual i fyas or i gi nal s our ces . ” U ni t ed St at es ex r el . Fi ne v. A dvance d Sci ence s , I nc. , 99 F. 3d 1000, 1006- 07 ( 10th C i r . 1996) ( ci t at i on o m itted). U ni t ed St at es ex r el . H aft erv. Spectrum E m er gencyC ar e i s ourm os tr ece ntand ful l es tdi s cus s i on of w hati s r equi r ed fora r el at ort o demonstr at e di r ectand i ndepende nt k n o w led g e . H a f

ter c o n c e rn e d a n a p p e a l f ro m th e d istric t co u rt’s g ra n t o f a m o tio n to di s m i s s forl ack of

s ubj ectm att erj ur i s di ct i on beca us e the r el at oral l egedl yw as notan or i gi nal s our ce. 190 F. 3d at1157- 58. T he r el at orhad s erved as both an emer gencyr oom phy s i ci an underan i ndepende ntcontr actw i th T exas E m er gencyR oom Ser vi ces , P. A . , an o u tsid e o rg a n iza tio n c o n tra c ted to sta f f th e E m e rg e n c yR o o m a t th e D a llas /F o rt W o rth M edi cal C ent er , and as a medi cal di r ect orr es pons i bl e fors upervi s i ng emer gencyr oom-18-

services and ph y si ci ans. A ft er the M edical C enterhad t erm i nated T exas S ervi ces’ co n tr ac t, the re lat o r’s ow n co n tr ac t w ith T ex as S erv ices w as term inated . S o o n there af ter, h e w a s c o n tac ted b ya n a tto rn e yre se a rc h in g a m e d ica l m a lp ra c tice c a se . D u rin g th e ir i nt ervi ew , the r el at ort ol d the att orneyaboutal l eged mi s m anage m entof the emer gency r oom , w ho then us ed thi s new i nform at i on t o amend hi s m al pr act i ce c om pl ai ntt o i ncl ude a lleg e d v io latio n s o f

th e T e x a s M e d ica l P ra c tice s A c t. A ppr oxi m at el yone y earaft erthe fi l i ng of thi s s ui t , the r el at orfi l ed hi s ow n qui t am s ui tal l egi ng fal s e and f r audul entM edi car e, M edi cai d and/ orC hampus r ei m bur s ement cl ai m s t o the G overnm ent . W hen the def endantm oved t o di s m i s s forl ack of s ubj ect m a tter ju risd ictio n , the d istric t co u rt ru led th a t b e c a u se th e in f o rm a tio n u n d e rly in g h is compl ai nthad bee n publ i cl ydi s cl os ed i n the ea r l i ers ui tbr oughtbythe att orneyw ho had cont act ed the r el at or , the courtcoul d have j ur i s di ct i on onl yi f the r el at orqual i fi ed as an or i gi nal s our ce. Fi ndi ng thathe fa i l ed t o m eetthe dual r equi r ement s i m pos ed on the rel at or, the d i stri ctcou rtgrant ed the m oti on t o d i sm i ss. O n appea l , w e foc us ed ouri nqui ryon det erm i ni ng w hetherthe r el at orhad the r equi s i t e di r ectand i ndepende ntknow l edge. W e det erm i ned thatthe bur den w as on t he r el at ort o demonstr at e thathe had di s cover ed the i nform at i on on w hi ch hi s al l egat i ons w e re b a se d th ro u g h h is “ o w n e f f o rts a n d n o t b yth e lab o rs o f o th e rs,” a n d th a t h is

“ in f o rm a tio n w a s n o t d e riv a tiv e o f o th e rs.” H a f

ter , 1 9 0 F .3 d a t 1 1 6 2 . O n th e f a c ts p re se n ted b yth e re lato r, w e h e ld th a t h e f a iled to sa tisf

yth is b u rd e n . W e c h a ra c ter ize d h is compl ai nt , w hi ch mer el ys t at ed thathe had “ di r ectand i ndepende ntknow l edge of the-19-

inf o rm ati o n u p o n w h ich th is suitis ba sed , ” a s stati n g o n lyan “u n su p p o rt ed , co n clus o ry a l l e g a t i o n ” a n d ru l e d th a ti twa s i n s u f f i c i e n tt o e s t a b l i s h j u r i s d i c t i o n . I d . L i k e wi s e , we found thatthe r el at or ’ s m emora ndum s ubm i t t ed i n r es pons e t o the mot i on t o di s m i s s w as equal l ydefi ci ent . B eca us e a “ m er e as s ert i on of know l edge, w i thoutadequa t e bas i s i n fac t and uns uppor t ed bycompet entpr oof i s i ns uffi ci entt o es t abl i s h j ur i s di ct i on, ” w e hel d that s uch “e qui vocal s t at ement s ” w er e i nadequa t e t o s at i s fythe di r ectand i ndepende nt know l edge e l ementforan or i gi nal s our ce. I d. at1163 ( ci t i ng W enz v. M emer yC ry s t al , 55 F . 3 d 1 5 0 3 , 1 5 0 8 -09 (10 th C ir . 1 9 9 5 )). N otw i ths t andi ng R ockw el l ’ s cl ai m thatSt one’ s evi dence of hi s di r ectand i n d e p e n d e n tk n o wl e d g e i s i n a d e q u a t e t o s a t i s f yth e s p e c i f

i c i tywe r e q u i r e d i n Ha f t e r , we bel i eve thatSt one has adduce d s uffi ci entcompet entpr oof t o es t abl i s h thathe had di r ect a n d in d e p e n d e n t k n o w le d g e o f th e in f o rm a tio n o n w h ic h h is F C A c la im w a s b a s e d . U n li k e in H af

ter, w h ere the re lat o r co u ld m u ster on lya c o n clus o rysu b m issi o n to the co u rt thathe had di r ectand i ndepende ntknow l edge w hi ch w as devoi d of s peci fi cs , her e r evi ew of the r ecor d convi nces us thatSt one has been s peci fi c and de t ai l ed i n s how i ng how he obt ai ned, thr ough hi s ow n eff or t s and notthr ough the l abor s of other s , di r ectand i ndepende ntknow l edge thatR ockw el l ’ s des i gns form anufa ctur i ng pondcr et e bl ocks w oul d r es ul ti n t he r el eas e of t oxi c w as t e. St one s uppl i ed the di s tr i ctcourtw i th an a f f id a v it d e tailin g h is d u ties a n d re sp o n sib ili ties a t R o c k yF lats a n d d e sc rib in g h is obs ervat i ons ther e thatunderpi nned hi s FC A act i on. St one ave rr ed thathe comm ence d empl oym entw i th R ockw el l atR ockyFl at s on N ovember10, 1980, as a Pr i nci pal E ngi neerSt one al s o averr ed thathe had not ed, bas ed on hi s “know l edge of the che m i cal 5 pr oces s es atR ockyFl at s , thatthe s l udge and l i qui d pr es enti n the evapor at i on ponds cont ai ned s om e of the mostt oxi c and r adi oact i ve s ubs t ance s atR ockyFl at s , w hi ch made the uns t abl e natur e of the pondcr et e part i cul ar l yhaza r dous . ” -20- in th e F a c ili ties , E n g in e e rin g a n d C o n stru c tio n D iv isio n , an d th a t h e w a s s u b se q u e n tly p ro m o ted to L e a d P rin c ip a l E n g in e e r f o r R o c k yF lats ’ U til ityD e sig n D e p a rtm e n t, Faci l i t i es E ngi neer i ng D i vi s i on, w her e he c ont i nued t o s erve unt i l hi s empl oym entw as t erm i nat ed on M ar ch 17, 1986. St one ave rr ed thathi s dut i es atR ockyFl at s i ncl uded pl ant - w i de “tr oubl es hoot i ng” and r evi ew i ng des i gns and exi s t i ng oper at i ons fors afe tyand cos teff ect i venes s . I I A pp. at291. In this affidavi tS t on e further averr ed thati n the cou rs e of h i s w ork atR ock yF l at s, h e w as a ssign ed to a p rojec t add ressing the m an u fa cturing p roc ess f o r po n d cre te, a m ixture of ce m entand s l udge and l i qui d fr om evapor at i on ponds cont ai ni ng t oxi c i ndus tr i al w as t es . A s partof hi s as s i gnm ent , St one ave rr ed thathe “s tudi ed as pect s of the des i gn pr opos ed byR ockw el l m anage m entform aki ng pondcr et e, ” and thathe “c oncl uded that the s ugges t ed pr oces s w oul d r es ul ti n an uns t abl e mi xtur e thatw oul d l at erdet er i or at e and c a u se u n w a n ted re lea se o f to x ic w a ste s to th e e n v iro n m e n t.” Id . at 2 9 8 (e m p h a sis 5 ad d ed ). S to n e ’s a f

f id a v it state s th a t h e c o m m u n ica ted h is c o n c e rn s a b o u t th e p o n d c re te m anufa ctur i ng pr oces s t o R ockw el l ’ s m anage m enti n an O ct ober13, 1982 “Engi neer i ng O r der , ” w hi ch he a t t ache d as an exhi bi tt o hi s aff i davi t . T hi s E ngi neer i ng O r derw as expl i ci ti n art i cul at i ng hi s bel i ef thatthe pr opos ed des i gn form aki ng pondcr et e w as-21-

fl aw ed: “Thi s des i gn w i l l notw or k i n m yopi ni on. I s ugges tthata pi l otoper at i on be des i gned t o s i m pl i fyand opt i m i ze e ach pha s e of the oper at i on . . . . ” I d. at439 ( E ngi neer i ng O r der ) . D es pi t e thi s w arni ng, R ockw el l w entforw ar d and manufactur ed pondcr et e us i ng the al l egedl ydefi ci entpr ocedur e. N ori s St one’ s aff

i davi tthe onl ydocumentthates t abl i s hes thathe pos s es s ed di r ect and i nd epen den tkn ow l edg e of a l l eged po nd cret e m anu facturi ng defici encies . W e al so fi nd i ts i gni fi cantthatSt one i n a J ul y5, 1989, confi dent i al di s cl os ur e s t at ementpr ovi ded t o the G ov ernm ent det ai l ed h ow he b ecam e aw are of R ock w el l ’s al l eged l yfaultyprocess f o r m a n u f a c tu rin g p o n d c re te. In a se c tio n o f th is s tate m e n t en tit led “ A n a ly sis o f p o n d c re te m ethod fordr ai nage of

s ol arevapor at i on ponds , ” St one r el at ed: S o la r e v a p o ra tio n p o n d s h a v e , f o r s o m e tim e , b e e n u s e d to tr e a t . . . haza r dous w as t es . M r . St one r evi ew ed a de s i gn forthe pr oces s and m echan i cal sy st em i ntended t o b e used f or r em ov i ng sl ud ge from these p o n d s. T h e sy stem w as p rop o sed b ya M r. L eo n F o n g . B ase d o n M r. St one’ s y ear s of expe r i ence i n the handl i ng of s ew age a nd s l udge, he im m e d iate lyre c o g n ize d th a t th e d e sig n c o u ld n o t w o rk a n d w o u ld lea d to s er i ous pr obl ems. Forexampl e, the s y s t em w as des i gned t o r emove sl udge fr om the pond and mi x thats l udge w i th cementi n or dert o cr eat e bl ocks of “pondcr et e” f

ordi s pos al us e. M r . St one for es aw thatthe pi pi ng s y s t em w o u ld n o t p ro p e rlyre m o v e th e slu d g e a n d w o u ld lea d to a n in a d e q u a te m ix tu re o f

slu d g e /w a ste a n d c e m e n t su c h th a t th e “ p o n d c re te” b lo c k s w o u ld rapi dlydis i ntegr at e t hu s cr eat i ng add i t i on al con t am i nati on problem s. I I A pp. at509 ( Pl ai nt i ff’ s C onfi dent i al D i s cl os ur e St at ementof M at er i al E vi dence and Inf o rm ati o n ) (em p h asis ad d ed ). M o re o v e r in h is d isc lo su re sta tem e n t S to n e d e sc rib e d h o w R o c k w e ll fo rb a d e h im f r o m di s c u s s i n g a n ye n v i r o n me n t a l p r o b l e ms a tRoc k yFl a t s wi th th e DO E.-22- I n aboutSept ember1981, thr ee manager s , W i l l i am N i chol , Sam C er i s e and Rober tJ ens en, m etw i th M r . St one r egar di ng the comm uni cat i on w ith D O E . In th a t m e e tin g , M r. N ich o l ex p re ss lyto ld M r. S to n e th a t h e d id notw antanygovernm entagenc yl earni ng anythi ng aboutpr obl ems or c o n d iti o n s th a t M r. S to n e m a yb e c o m e a w a re o f in c o n n e c tio n w ith h is em p loym en t atR o ck yF lat s. M r. N icho l ord ere d M r. S ton e, i n p arti cu lar, nott o comm uni cat e w i th the D O E r egar di ng s uch mat t er s , orw i th any g o v e rn m e n t ag e n c ya t all. F u rth e r, M r. S to n e w a s to ld th a t if h e v io late d th is g a g o rd e r, h e w o u ld b e f ire d . M r. S to n e ’s r e q u e st th a t th is o rd e r b e p u t in w r i t i ng w as r efus ed. Id. at 49 6 (em p h asis ad d ed ). W e bel i eve thatthe i nform at i on i s s uffi ci ent l ys peci fi c t o s at i s fythe s t andar d s et outi n the FC A and i n ouropi ni ons . St one cl ear l yart i cul at ed i n hi s aff i davi tand di s cl os ur e s t at ementthathe l earned the fa ct s under l y i ng hi s cl ai m byr evi ew i ng R o c k w e ll’s p lan s f

o r p ro d u c in g p o n d c re te. W e th u s a re c o n v in c e d th a t h e su f f icie n tly al l eged “ s peci fi c fa ct s – as oppos ed t o m er e conc l us i ons – s how i ng exac t l yhow and w hen he . . . obt ai ned di r ectand i ndepende ntknow l edge of the fr audul entact s al l eged i n the c o m p lain t an d su p p o rt[ e d ] th o se a lleg a tio n s w ith c o m p e ten t p ro o f ,” a n d th a t th is k n o w le d g e w a s d is c o v e re d th o u g h h is o w n la b o r. H a f te r, 1 9 0 F .3 d a t 1 1 6 2 . W e a re n o t persu ad ed b yR o ck w ell ’s arg u m en ts t o the c o n tr ary , w h ich a re perm eat ed bya fl aw ed under s t andi ng of the FC A ’ s defi ni t i on of di r ectand i ndepende nt kn ow l edg e. T he u nd erl y i ng assum pti on of R ock w el l ’s argum ents i s that a r el at or m ust have di r ectand i ndepende ntknow l edge of the ac tual fr audul ents ubm i s s i on t o the governm ent . R ockw el l thus ar gues thatt o es t abl i s h hi m s el f as an or i gi nal s our ce, St one neede d t o have ha d di r ectand i ndepende ntknow l edge of the s peci fi c document s that-23-

in f o rm e d D O E th a t R o c k yF lats w a s in c o m p lian c e w ith e n v iro n m e n tal, h e a lth a n d sa f e ty l aw s, as w el l as the spec i fi c i nd i vidual s w ho subm i t t ed those i naccu rat e cl ai m s. T he pl ai n t extof the FC A , how ever , bel i es thi s i nt erpr et at i on; the FC A i s cl eart hat fora r el at ort o be an or i gi nal s our ce he need onl ypos s es s “di r ectand i ndepende nt k n o w le d g e o f

th e in f o rm a tio n o n w h ic h th e a lle g a tio n s a re b a s e d .” 3 1 U .S .C . § 3730( e) ( 4) ( B ) . I n H aft er , w e expl ai ned thatthe phr as e “i nform at i on on w hi ch the al l egat i ons ar e bas ed” means “the i nform at i on under l y i ng ors uppor t i ng the fr aud al l egat i ons cont ai ned i n the pl ai nt i ff’ s qui t am com pl ai nt . ” H aft er , 190 F. 3d at1162 ( emphasi s added) . W e thus dr ew a di s t i nct i on betw een the ac tual actof fr aud, i . e. the actual s ubm i s s i on of i nacc ur at e cl ai m s byR ockw el l t o D O E , and the fa ct s under l y i ng or w hi ch gi ve r i s e t o t he fr aud, i . e. the envi r onm ent al , heal th and s afe tyvi ol at i ons themsel ves . T he r el at orneed not , as R ockw el l s ay s , have i n hi s pos s es s i on know l edge of the ac tual fr audul entconducti t s el f; know l edge “ under l y i ng ors uppor t i ng” the fr aud a lleg a tio n is s u f

f icie n t. Id . T h u s, w e a re p e rsu a d e d th a t S to n e ’s k n o w led g e th a t a defe ct i ve pondcr et e manufactur i ng pr oces s w oul d be empl oy ed, gai ned fr om hi s r evi ew of R o c k w e ll’s p lan s, c o n stitu tes k n o w led g e o f in f o rm a tio n “ u n d e rly in g o r su p p o rtin g ” h is al l egat i on conce r ni ng R ockw el l ’ s al l eged ul t i m at e fr audul entact i vi ty( the s ubm i s s i on of c laim s to th e D O E f

a lse lysta tin g th a t R o c k yF lats w a s in c o m p lian c e w ith e n v iro n m e n tal, h ea lth an d saf

etylaw s). Forthe s ame r eas ons , w e ar e notper s uaded byR ockw el l ’ s ar gum entthatSt one coul d notbe an or i gi nal s our ce f orthe pondcr et e cl ai m beca us e he no l ongerw or ked at-24-

R ockyFl at s w hen the manufactur e of pondc r et e bl ocks comm ence d. T he gr avamen of St one’ s cl ai m i s thathe l earned fr om s tudy i ng R ockw el l ’ s pl ans form anufa ctur i ng p o n d c re te th a t th e b lo c k s w o u ld lea k to x ic w a ste . T h e f a c t th a t h e w a s n o t p h y sic a lly pr es entatR ockyFl at s w hen pr oduct i on began i s i m m at er i al t o the r el evantques t i on, w hi ch i s w hetherhe had di r ectand i ndepende ntknow l edge of the i nform at i on under l y i ng hi s cl ai m , i n t hi s cas e R ockw el l ’ s aw ar enes s thati tw oul d be us i ng a def ect i ve pr oces s for m anufa ctur i ng pondcr et e. N ordo w e fi nd per s uas i ve R ockw el l ’ s ar gum entthatSt one coul d nothave ha d di r ectand i ndepende ntknow l edge of the i nform at i on on w hi ch hi s pondcr et e cl ai m w as b a se d b e c a u se , R o c k w e ll as se rts, it i s “ p re p o ste ro u s” to th in k th a t th e a lleg e d d e f e c ts in des i gn St one i dent i fi ed i n hi s r evi ew of the des i gns l at ercaus ed s ol i di tydefe ct s i n the p o n d cre te blo ck s. A p p ell an t’ s O p en ing B ri ef at 37 . R o ck w ell ’s objecti o n d o es n o t carry w eigh t; w h ethe r th e a ll eg ed d esig n flaw s n o ted b yS ton e in h is E n g inee ri n g R ep o rt actual l ycaus ed the pr oduct i on of m al form ed pondcr et e bl ocks i s i m m at er i al . Fora r el at or t o be pr oper l yqual i fi ed as an or i gi nal s our ce, he musthave ha d di r ectand i ndepende nt k n o w led g e o f

th e in f o rm a tio n o n w h ich h is c laim is b a se d . B u t w h e th e r th a t cla im is ul t i m at el yfl aw ed on the mer i t s i s an ana l yt i cal l ydi s t i nctques t i on fr om the one mandat ed bythe FC A fores t abl i s hi ng j ur i s di ct i on. I ti s forthe fi nderof fa ctt o det erm i ne w hether the pl ai nt i ff’ s theoryhas m er i t ; t o s at i s fythe di r ectand i ndepende ntpr ong of the or i gi nal s our ce t es t , the r el at orneed onl ys how thathe pos s es s ed di r ectand i ndepende nt k n o w led g e o f

th e in f o rm a tio n u p o n w h ich h is c laim is b a se d , n o t th a t h is c laim is f a c tu a lly-25-

c o rre c t. T her efor e, w e hol d thatSt one has adequa t el yes t abl i s hed hi m s el f as havi ng di r ect a n d in d e p e n d e n t k n o w led g e o f h is a lleg a tio n th a t R o c k w e ll m a n u f a c tu re d in so lid p o n d cre te (w h ich R o ck w ell co n ce aled fro m the G o v ern m en t) .
E O n r econs i der at i on of the s econd pr ong of the or i gi nal s our ce t es t— w hi ch r equi r es th a t S to n e h a v e v o lu n tar ilyp ro v id e d th e in f o rm a tio n u n d e rly in g h is p o n d c re te c laim , h is salt cre te claim an d h is i rri g ati o n claim to the U n it ed S tat es b ef o re f il ing su it— the c o u rt fi nds thatthe r ecor d does notr evea l s peci fi c and pe r t i nentfi ndi ngs - of- fac tbyei therof the j udges w ho cons i der ed the pr e- fi l i ng di s cl os ur e i s s ue t o s uppor ta conc l us i on w hethert he r equi r ed di s cl os ur e w as orw as notm ade. W hi l e ther e i s cons i der abl e mat er i al i n our r ecor d on t hi s i s s ue, thi s appel l at e courts houl d notper form the fa ct - fi ndi ng funct i on re s e rv e d f

o r t h e d is tr ic t c o u rt s . See D avis v. U ni t ed Stat es , 1 9 2 F .3 d 9 5 1 , 9 6 1 (1 0 th C ir 1 9 9 9 ). A ccor di ngl y , thi s courther ebydi r ect s thatther e be a l i m i t ed r emand t o the di s tr i ct courtforthe purpos e of f i ndi ngs and conc l us i ons bei ng m ade t o as cert ai n w hetherthe r equi r ed pr e- l i t i gat i on di s cl os ur e t o the G overnm entw as m ade, and foranyfur ther p ro c e e d in g s b ya n yh e a rin g s th a t th e d istric t co u rt sh a ll fin d p ro p e r a n d n e c e ss a ryo n th is iss u e . W e th e re f

o re m a k e a lim ited re m a n d f o r f u rth e r p ro c e e d in g s in a c c o rd w ith th is or der , fur therfi ndi ngs , concl us i ons and a f ur therrul i ng on the j ur i s di ct i onal i s s ue, w hi ch-26-

sh a ll b e c e rtifie d a s a su p p lem e n tal re c o rd to th is c o u rt; o th e rw ise th is c o u rt w ill re tain j uri sdi ct i on of these appe al s.

III

R ockw el l pr es ent s a numberof cons t i tut i onal chal l enges t o qui t am act i ons underthe FC A , ar gui ng thatqui t am re l at or s l ack A r t i cl e I I I s t andi ng, thatthe FC A ’ s qui t am provi s i ons vi ol at e the A ppoi nt m ent s C l aus e of A r t i cl e I I , and thattheyal s o vi ol at e the T a k e C a re C lau se o f

A rticle II. W e re v iew d e n o v o c h a llen g e s to th e c o n stitu tio n a lity of a s t atut e. U ni t ed St at es v. H ampshi r e, 95 F. 3d 999, 1001 ( 10th C i r . 1996) ; U ni t ed S ta te s v . B o lto n , 6 8 F .3 d 3 9 6 , 3 9 8 (1 0 th C ir . 1 9 9 5 ).

A St andi ng R o c k w e ll’ s c h a lle n g e to th e A rt ic le II I s ta n d in g o f re la to rs is e a s ily d is p o s e d o f. R ece nt l y , i n V erm ontA gencyof N atur al R es our ces v. U ni t ed St at es ex r el . St evens , 120 S. C t . 1858 ( 2000) , the Supr eme C our thel d thatr el at or s do have s t andi ng t o l i t i gat e qui t am cl ai m s . I d. at1865 ( “W e thi nk thi s hi s t oryw el l ni gh concl us i ve w i th r es pectt o the q u esti o n b ef

o re u s h ere : w h ethe r qu i t am ac ti o n s w ere ‘ca ses a n d co n tr o v ersies o f th e so rt tr adi t i onal l yamenabl e t o, and r es ol ved by , the j udi ci al pr oces s . ’ W hen combi ned w i t h t he theor et i cal j us t i fi cat i on forr el at ors t andi ng . . . i tl eave s no r oom fordoubtthata qui t am-27-

r el at orunderthe FC A has A r t i cl e I I I s t andi ng. ”) ( quot i ng St eel C o. v. C i t i zens fora B ett er E n v ir o n m en t, 5 2 3 U . S . 8 3 , 1 0 2 (19 9 8 )). T h ere fo re, w e a re o b li g ed to rejec t R o ck w ell ’s cont ent i on thatqui t am re l at or s l ack A r t i cl e I I I s t andi ng. T he St evens C our t , how ever , w as car eful t o s peci fythati tw as expr es s i ng no opi ni on conce r ni ng othercons t i tut i onal chal l enges t o qui t am act i ons , namel yw hether theyv iolate th e T ak e C are an d A p p o intm en t C laus es o f A rt icl e II. Id. at 18 6 5 n . 8 (“[ W ]e expr es s no vi ew on the ques t i on w hetherqui t am sui t s vi ol at e A r t i cl e I I , i n part i cul art he A p p o intm en ts C laus e o f § 2 an d the ‘tak e C are ’ C laus e o f § 3 . ”). A cc o rdin g ly , w e turn no w t o these r em ai ning argum ents .
B T h e A p p ointm en ts C l au se R o ck w ell arg u es th at th e F C A ’s qu i t am p rov isi o n s v iolate A rt icl e II’s A ppoi nt m ent s C l aus e, w hi ch s t at es i n partthatthe Pr es i dents hal l nom i nat e and “ byand w i th the A dvi ce a nd C ons entof the Senat e, s hal l appoi nt. . . al l otherO ffi cer s of the U n ited S tate s, w h o se A p p o in tm e n ts a re n o t h e re in o th e rw ise p ro v id e d f o r, an d w h ich sh a ll be es t abl i s hed byL aw ; butthe C ongr es s m aybyl aw ves tthe A ppoi nt m entof s uch i nfer i or O ffi cer s , as theythi nk pr oper , i n the Pr es i dental one, i n the C our t s of Law , ori n the H eads of D epart m ent s . ” U . S. C ons t . art . I I , § 2, cl . 2. B ym aki ng thi s di s t i nct i on, the C ons t i tut i on es t abl i s hes a bi fur cat ed s y s t em of appoi nt m ent s : pr i nci pal offi cer s ar e appoi nt ed bythe Pr es i dentw i th the “A dvi ce a nd-28-

C o n se n t o f

th e S e n a te,” w h ile C o n g re ss m a yv e st th e a p p o in tm e n t o f “ in f e rio r O f f ice rs” in “the Pr es i dental one, i n C our t s of Law , ori n the H eads of D epartm ent s . ” Edm ond v. U ni t ed St at es , 520 U . S. 651, 650- 61 ( quot i ng A r t i cl e I I ) . R ockw el l s ugges t s thatthe FC A ’ s enfor cements cheme perm i t s pr i vat e r el at or s t o “appoi ntthemsel ves as pr os ecut or s ” and thus runs afoul of the r equi r ement s of the A ppoi nt m ent s C l aus e bec aus e, a c c o r d i n g t o R o c k w e l l , B u c k l e y v . V a l e o , 4 2 4 U . S . 1 , 1 2 6 ( 1 9 7 6 ) , m a n d a t e s th a to n l y a pr oper l yappoi nt ed “O ffi cerof the U ni t ed St at es ” mayconductl i t i gat i on on behal f of the U ni t ed St at es , and thatr el at or s ar e notappoi nt ed byanyof the s anct i oned met hods of appoi nt i ng offi cer s . A ppel l ant ’ s O peni ng B r i ef a t48. W e a re n o t p e rsu a d e d th a t B u c k ley su g g e sts th a t w e sh o u ld f in d a n A p p o in tm e n ts C lau se v io latio n h e re . T h e p ro c e d u ra l re q u ire m e n ts o f th e A p p o in tm e n ts C lau se o n ly appl yt o the appoi nt m entof off i cer s . T hus , the thr es hol d ques t i on thatw e fa ce i s w hether q u i tam re lato rs a re “ o f f ice rs” f o r p u rp o se s o f

A rticle II. W e c o n c lu d e th a t th e ya re n o t; q u i tam re lato rs d o n o t se rv e in a n yo f f ice o f th e U n ited S tate s. T h e re is n o leg isla tiv e ly cr eat ed off

i ce of i nform erorr el at orunderthe FC A . R el at or s ar e notent i t l ed t o the benef i t s of off i cehol der s , s uch as dr aw i ng a governm ents al ary . A nd theyar e nots ubj ect t o the r equi r ement , not ed l ong ago bythe Supr eme C our t , thatthe def i ni t i on of an of

fi cer “e m b rac es th e ide as o f ten u re, du rati o n , em o lum en t, an d d u ti es, an d the latt er w ere cont i nui ng and perm anent , notocca s i onal ort empora ry . ” U ni t ed St at es v. G erm ai ne, 99 U .S . 5 0 8 , 5 1 1 -1 2 (1 8 7 8 ); se e a lso A u f f m o rd t v . H e d d e n , 1 3 7 U .S . 3 1 0 , 3 2 7 (1 8 9 0 ) (“ H is pos i t i on i s w i thoutt enur e, dur at i on, cont i nui ng emol um ent , orcont i nuous dut i es , and he-29-

act s onl yocca s i onal l yand t empora r i l y . T her efor e, he i s notan ‘ offi cer ’ w i thi n the m ea n ing o f th e c laus e o f th e c o n sti tuti o n ref erred to.”). W e ther efor e conc l ude thatR ockw el l cons trues B uckl eyt oo br oadl y : thatopi ni on hel d that“anyappoi nt ee e xer ci s i ng s i gni fi cantauthor i typur s uantt o the l aw s of the U ni t ed St at es i s an ‘ O ffi cerof the U ni t ed St at es , ’ and must , ther efor e, be appoi nt ed i n the manner p resc ri b ed b y§ 2 , cl. 2 , o f th at A rt icl e.” B u ck ley , 4 2 4 U . S . at 12 6 . T h e C o u rtw as c lear, h o w e v e r, th a t th is d e f

in iti o n o f a n o f f ice r o f th e U n ited S tate s s h o u ld b e c o n stru e d in co n fo rm ityw ith it s p ri o r G erm aine an d A u ff m o rdt o p inion s, w h ich th e B u ck leyC o u rt ext ens i vel yquot ed w i th appr oval . I d. at124- 25 & n. 162. Si nce qui t am re l at or s do not m eetthes e r equi r ement s , quot ed s upr a, w e, l i ke the otherci r cui t s thathave c ons i der ed the q u e stio n , h o ld th a t th e F C A ’s q u i tam p ro v isio n s d o n o t co n tra v e n e th e A p p o in tm e n ts C l aus e. See R i l eyv. St . L uke’ s E pi s copal H os p. , 252 F. 3d 749, 757- 58 ( 5th C i r . 2001) ( en banc) ; U ni t ed St at es ex r el . T axpay er s A gai ns tFr aud v. G ener al E l ectr i c C orp. , 41 F. 3d 1032, 1041 ( 6th C i r . 1994) ; U ni t ed St at es ex. r el . K el l yv. B oei ng C o. , 9 F. 3d 743, 759 (9th C ir . 1 9 9 3 ).

C T h e T ak e C are C l au se W e now di r ectouratt ent i on t o R ockw el l ’ s ar gum entthatthe FC A ’ s qui t am p ro v isio n s v io late A rticle II’s T a k e C a re C lau se , w h ich e sta b lish e s th a t th e E x e c u tiv e is the br anch of

governm entw hi ch “s hal l t ake Car e thatthe l aw s be fa i thful l yexec ut ed. ”-30-

U . S. C ons t . , art . I I , § 3. R ockw el l cont ends thatthe FC A i nt er fer es w i th the Execut i ve B r anch’ s cons t i tut i onal l yas s i gned dutyt o enfor ce the nat i on’ s l aw s byconfe rr i ng l aw e n f o rc e m e n t p o w e rs o n p o lit ica llyu n a c c o u n tab le p riv a te r e lato rs w h o a re n o t su b jec t to c o n tro l b yth a t B ra n c h o f th e G o v e rn m e n t an d w h o a re m o tiv a ted so lelyb yp riv a te fin an cial i n terests th at m ayb e inim ical t o the G o v ern m en t’ s interests. S ee A p p ell an t’ s O p e n in g B ri e f

a t 4 6 . O n the fa ct s of thi s cas e, w e ar e notper s uaded thata cons t i tut i onal vi ol at i on has occurr ed. R ockw el l ar gues thatthe qui t am provi s i ons run afoul of M orr i s on v. O l s on, 487 U . S. 654 ( 1988) , w hi ch es t abl i s hed thatcongr es s i onal act i on m us tl eave the Execut i ve B ra n c h w ith su f

f icie n t “c o n tro l” o v e r its liti g a tio n so a s to “ e n su re th a t th e P re sid e n t is a b le to p e rf

o rm h is c o n s titu tio n a lly a s s ig n e d d u tie s .” M o rr is o n , 4 8 7 U .S . a t 6 9 6 . R ockw el l cont ends thatappl i cat i on of the FC A ’ s qui t am provi s i ons vi ol at e the M orr i s on t e s tb e c a u s e th e Ex e c u t i v e h a s n o p o we rt o r e mo v e th e r e l a t o rf r o m th e l a ws u i t( 3 1 U. S . C. § 3 7 3 0 (c )( 3 )) ; th e E x e c u tiv e c a n n o t c o n tr o l th e b re a d th o f th e re la to r’ s c la im s (3 1 U .S .C . § 3730 ( c) ( 3) ) ; i f the Execut i ve s eeks t o i nt ervene a ft eri ni t i al l ydecl i ni ng t o do s o ( as happene d her e) i tm ayi nt ervene onl yi f the courtfi nds “good ca us e” f ors uch i nt ervent i on, a n d e v e n th e n th e E x e c u tiv e c a n n o t lim it th e re la to r’ s “ s ta tu s a n d ri g h ts ” (3 1 U .S .C . § 3 7 3 0 (c )(3 )); a n d if

th e E x e c u tiv e is a llo w e d to in ter v e n e a f ter in iti a llyd e c lin in g to d o so , it is b a rre d f

ro m d ism iss in g th e re lato r’s c laim s, a n d is th e re b ystrip p e d o f a n yp o w e r to term inate q u i t am ac ti o n s u n d er tho se c ir cu m stan ce s (31 U . S . C . § 3 7 3 0 (c)(3)). W e ar e notper s uaded thati n the ci r cumst ance s of thi s cas e, the s epar at i on ofW e e x p re ss n o o p in io n re g a rd in g w h e th e r th e F C A ’s q u i tam p ro v isio n s v io late 6 the sepa rat i on of p ow ers or the T ake C are C l ause i n cir cum st ances o ther than tho se pr es ent ed i n thi s cas e, i . e. i f the G overnm enthad s oughtperm i s s i on t o i nt ervene, butw as deni ed i nt ervent i on bythe di s tr i ctcourt , ori f the G overnm entdes i r ed t o r emove t he re la to r f ro m th e a c tio n b u t w a s p re v e n te d f ro m d o in g s o b ya p p lic a tio n o f th e s ta tu te . -31- pow er s , as embodi ed i n the Take C ar e C l aus e, has been tr ans gr es s ed. T he G overnm ent soug ht, and w as grant ed p erm i ssi on , t o int ervene. C on sequen t l y , the G ov ernm ent w as a f u ll a n d a c tiv e p a rt ic ip a n t in th e litig a tio n a s it jo in tly p ro s e c u te d th e c a s e w ith S to n e . G i ven thatthe G overnm entw as perm i t t ed t o i nt ervene, w e r emai n unconvi nced by R ockw el l ’ s cont ent i on thatthe pr es ence of a qui t am re l at ori n the l i t i gat i on s o hi nder ed th e G o v e rn m e n t’s p ro se c u to ria l d isc re tio n a s to d e p riv e th e G o v e rn m e n t o f its a b ili tyto per form i t s cons t i tut i onal l yas s i gned r es pons i bi l i t i es . M orr i s on, 487 U . S. at695- 96. 6 A ccor di ngl y , w e agr ee w i th the Fi fth, Si xth, and N i nth C i r cui t s , and hol d thatat lea st w h e re th e G o v e rn m e n t in ter v e n e s, th e q u i tam p ro v isio n s o f th e F C A d o n o t v io late the s epar at i on of pow er s bytr ans gr es s i on of the Take C ar e C l aus e. R i l ey , 252 F. 3d at 753- 57 ( “[T] he qui t am port i ons of the FC A do notvi ol at e the cons t i tut i onal doctr i ne of sep ara ti o n o f p o w er b yim p ing ing u p o n the E x ec u ti v e’s c o n sti tuti o n al du tyto tak e c are that the law s are fa ith fu ll yex ec u ted u n d er A rt icl e II o f th e C o n sti tuti o n . ”); T ax p ay ers A gai ns tFr aud, 41 F. 3d at1041 ( “The qui t am provi s i ons adopt ed byC ongr es s do not contr adi ctthe cons t i tut i onal pr i nci pl e of s epar at i on of pow er s . ”) ; B oei ng, 9 F. 3d at755 ( “[T] he Execut i ve B r anch e xer ci s es atl eas tan equi val entamount of contr ol overqui t am r el at or s as i tdoes overi ndepende ntcouns el s . T hus , the FC A gi ves the A t t orneyG ener al su ff ici en t m ea n s o f c o n tr o ll ing o r sup erv isi n g relators to sa ti sfysep ara ti o n o f p o w ers-32-

co n ce rns.”) (fo o tno te om itted). W e h av e e x am ined relev an t op inion s o f th e F ifth , S ixth a n d N inth C ir cu it s an d are per s uaded thatatl eas tw her e the G overnm enti s perm i t t ed t o i nt ervene a nd does s o, the qui t am provi s i ons of the FC A do notvi ol at e the Take C ar e C l aus e pr ovi s i ons of A r t i cl e I I and their sep ara ti o n o f p o w ers p ri n ciples. W e h av e e arli er d iscu ssed thes e d ec isi o n s in P art II B i n connec t i on w i th the A ppoi nt m ent s C l aus e and ther e hel d thatthe FC A qui t am pr ovi s i ons do notcontr avene thatcl aus e. W e now focus on the Take C ar e C l aus e of A rt icl e II. I n R i l eyv. St . L uke’ s E pi s copal H os pi t al , 252 F. 3d 749, 753- 57 ( 5th C i r . 2001) ( en banc) , the Fi fth C i r cui tuphel d t he FC A qui t am provi s i ons agai ns tT ake Car e obj ect i ons w her e the G overnm entchoos es t o i nt ervene a nd does s o. R i l eynot ed thatthe Execut i ve re ta in s s ig n if

ic a n t c o n tr o l o v e r l itig a tio n p u rs u e d u n d e r t h e F C A b ya q u i ta m re la to r, i d ., i ncl udi ng pow ert o vet o s ett l ement s forexampl e. T he Fi fth C i r cui tconcl uded thatthe qui t am port i ons of the FC A do notvi ol at e cons t i tut i onal pr i nci pl es of s epar at i on of pow er s by im p in g in g o n th e E x e c u tiv e ’s c o n stitu tio n a l d u tyto tak e c a re th a t th e law s a re f a ith f u lly exec ut ed underA r t i cl e I I of the C ons t i tut i on. 252 F. 3d at757. T h e S ix th a n d N in th C irc u its e x p re ss e d sim ilar v iew s. In U n ited S tate s e x re l. T axpay er s A gai ns tFr aud v. G ener al E l ectr i c C o. , 41 F. 3d 1032 ( 6th C i r . 1994) , a s i m i l ar T a k e C a re o b

je c tio n w a s m a d e to th e c o n s titu tio n a lity o f th e F C A ’s q u i ta m p ro v is io n s . T h e S ix th C irc u it reje c ted th e o b jec tio n s, a g re e in g w ith th e N in th C irc u it’s ru lin g in U ni t e d St a t e s e x r e l . K e l l yv. Boei ng Co. , 9 F. 3d 74 3 ( 9th Ci r . 19 93 ) , c e r t . de ni e d, 11 4 S.-33-

C t . 1125 ( 1994) . T he Si xth C i r cui texpl ai ned thatthe qui t am provi s i ons do not contr avene the cons t i tut i onal pr i nci pl e of s epar at i on of pow er s ; thatthe s t atut e w as cr aft ed w i th part i cul arcar e t o m ai nt ai n the pr i m acyof the Execut i ve B r anch i n pr os ecut i ng fal s ecl ai m s act i ons , even w her e the r el at orhas i ni t i at ed the pr oces s ; and thati ndeed, i f the G overnm entdeci des nott o i nt ervene i n a r el at or ’ s cas e ( w hi ch i s notthe ca s e her e) i tm ay s t i l l r equi r e the r el at ort o i nform i tof deve l opm ent s , among ot herthi ngs . T hus , the Si xt h C ir cu itco n clud ed that “the E x ec u ti v e B ran ch retains ‘su ff ici en t con tr o l” ov er the relator’s conductt o i ns ur e thatthe Pr es i denti s abl e t o per form hi s cons t i tut i onal l yas s i gned d u t[y ]. ’” T ax p ay ers, 41 F . 3 d at 10 4 1 (cit ing M o rri so n v . O lson , 4 8 7 U . S . 6 5 4 , 6 9 6 (19 8 8 )). I n s um , w e hol d t hatthe qui t am provi s i ons of the FC A do notvi ol at e the Take C ar e C l aus e pr ot ect i ve pr ovi s i ons of A r t i cl e I I i n the ci r cumst ance s of thi s cas e w her e the G overnm enti nt ervened. IV B oth St one and the G overnm entar gue thata new tr i al i s r equi r ed t o aw ar d damages to c o m p e n sa te f

o r c o sts in c u rre d in th e re p a ir o f d a m a g e c a u se d b yth e f a u ltyp o n d c re te bl ocks . T heycont end thi s i s m ade ne ces s arybythe tr i al court ’ s err oneous r efus al t o gr ant th e ir m o tio n f

o r a n e w trial o n d a m a g e s b e c a u se th e ju ry ’s d a m a g e a w a rd w a s im p ro p e rly i n f l u e n c e d b y a l l e g e d l y i r r e l e v a n ta n d p r e j u d i c i a l t e s t i m o n y. I n hi s i ns truct i ons t o t he j ury , the tr i al j udge cha r ged thatdamages i n the form of com pen sat i on for po nd cret e repai r cost s should be aw arded i f t heyw ere i ncu rr ed “b ecause o f ” R o c k w e l l ’ s F C A v i o l a t i o n s . P l a i n t i f f s c o n t e n d th a td e s p i t e th i s i n s tru c t i o n , th e j u r y,P lain tiff s m a in tain th a t R o c k w e ll’s o w n e x p e rt tes tifie d th a t if R o c k w e ll w e re to 7 b e f o u n d liab le, th e G o v e rn m e n t w o u ld b e e n tit led to a t lea st $ 3 0 2 ,0 0 0 f o r p o n d c re te r epai rcos t s . I X A pp. at4663. -34- th o u g h it f

o u n d R o c k w e ll lia b le , f a ile d to c o m p e n s a te th e G o v e rn m e n t f o r r e p a irc o s ts . P lain tiff s a rriv e a t th is c o n c lu sio n f ro m th e f a c t th a t th e ju rya w a rd a m o u n ted to o n ly $1, 390, 775. 80 i n damages – an amountexac t l yequal t o t en per centof the fe es pai d byt he D e p a rtm e n t o f

E n e rg yto R o c k w e ll d u rin g th e p e rio d f o r w h ich th e ju ryf

o u n d R o c k w e ll l i abl e. Pl ai nt i ffs cont end thats i nce dur i ng thi s r el evantper i od “w as t e management ” had a t en per centw ei ghti n t he form ul a forcal cul at i ng R ockw el l ’ s r enumer at i on fr om the D e p a rtm e n t o f

E n e rg y , the ju rym u st h a v e c o m p e n sa ted th e G o v e rn m e n t f o r its w a ste m a n a g e m e n t f

e e s o n ly , an d th e re f

o re w ro n g lye x c lu d e d f ro m its a w a rd th e p o n d c re te repai r cost s. 7 P lain tiff s a rg u e th a t th e ju ry ’s d e c isio n n o t to in c lu d e p o n d c re te r e p a ir c o sts in its a w a rd o f d a m a g e s c a n o n lyb e e x p lain e d b yth e ju ryh a v in g c re d ited th e “ im p ro p e rly admi t t ed” t es t i m onyof def ens e expe r tw i tnes s G l en Sj obl om , w ho t es t i fi ed thatthe D e p a rtm e n t o f

E n e rg yh a d re im b u rse d c o n tra c to rs f o r re p a ir c o sts a t o th e r f a c ili ties . T h is tes tim o n yw a s im p ro p e r, P lain tiff s m a in tain , b e c a u se it ad d re ss e d w h e th e r re p a ir c o sts w e re re im b u rsa b le u n d e r th e D O E -R o c k w e ll co n tra c t, an iss u e th a t th e yc o n ten d is un rel at ed to the F C A cl ai m and w hich the juryw as not perm i t t ed to decide becau se

“ a l l o wa b l e ” c o s t s b yc o n tr a c ta r e n o tn o n - r e c o v e r a b l e a s d a ma g e s r e s u l t i n g f r o m a n F CA v io la tio n . P lain tiff s’ c laim o f

e rro r is p re d ica ted o n th e a ss u m p tio n th a t th e ju ryc a lcu late d its-35-

aw ar d of damages i n an i m perm i s s i bl e manner . O urhol di ng i n M i dw es tU nder gr ound St or age, I nc. v. Por t er , 717 F. 2d 493, 500- 502 ( 10th C i r . 1983) , how ever , es t abl i s hes t hat s uch an a s s um pt i on i s nott o be l i ght l ym ade. I n M i dw es t , w e cons i der ed w hetherthe di s tr i ctcourts houl d have gr ant ed a ne w tr i al bas ed on a j ury ’ s aw ar d of damages i n t he amount of $3, 911, 637, a fi gur e equa l i ng the exa ctamount cl ai m ed bythe pl ai nt i ff f or “pr oducts hor t age, ” a da m age i t em t hatw as cont i ngentupon a fi ndi ng thatthe def endant w a s lia b le o n a c o u n ter c laim . H o w e v e r, ev e n th o u g h th e ju ryd e n ied th e c o u n ter c laim , it nonethel es s aw ar ded thatexac tamount . D es pi t e thi s r emar kabl e coi nci dence , w e hel d t hat th e d e f e n d a n t w a s n o t en tit led to a n e w trial: W hi l e the l i kel i hood of a c oi nci dence i n num ber s m aybe verys m al l , the p o ss ib ili tyo f

th e sp e c ial a ttrac tiv e n e ss o f $ 3 ,9 1 1 ,6 3 7 a s a c o n sc io u sly selec ted d am ag e a w ard ap p ea rs t o u s to b e a d ist inct p o ssibil ity . T h e jury had bef or e i texhi bi t104, w hi ch di s pl ay ed a va r i etyof num ber s , i ncl udi ng th e $ 3 , 9 1 1 , 6 3 7 f

i g u r e . Ex h i b i t1 0 4 a l s o c o n t a i n e d a d a ma g e f i g u r e f o rs o me of the s t at e l aw cl ai m s w hi ch, w hen adde d w i th otherfi gur es of damage the j urycoul d aw ar d, w oul d come cl os e t o the $3, 911, 637 fi gur e. T he s econd plausi ble expl anati on i s that the juryw as conf used . . . . T he fir st e x p l a n a t i o n wo u l d r e q u i r e th a twe u p h o l d th e a wa r d , th e s e c o n d th a twe r ever s e and r emand fora new tr i al . . . . G i ven thi s choi ce be tw een a p o ssible p rop er d eterm ination o f a fig u re a n d a p o ssible instan ce o f ju ry con fusi on , w e cann ot fr eel yexerci se our ow n judgm ent as t o the m ost pl aus i bl e . . . . I ti s w el l s ett l ed thata ver di ctw i l l notbe ups eton the bas i s of sp e c u latio n a s to th e m a n n e r in w h ich th e ju ro rs a rriv e d a t it . I d. at501. T h e is s u e in M id w e s t is le g a lly in d is tin g u is h a b le f ro m th e o n e p re s e n te d h e re . A ccor di ngl y , w e hol d thatthe di s tr i ctcourtdi d notabus e i t s di s cr et i on i n deny i ng P lain tiff s’ m o tio n f

o r a n e w trial.-36- V T h e G o v e rn m e n t ar g u e s th a t th e trial ju d g e e rre d b yd ism iss in g w ith p re ju d ice its cl ai m forcomm on l aw fr aud. W e not e thatdur i ng tr i al the j udge expr es s ed conc ern t hat the comm on l aw fr aud cl ai m coul d confus e the j ury . V I I I A pp. at35, 70, Pr ocee di ngs of M a rc h 1 6 , 1 9 9 9 . O n M a rc h 2 3 , 1 9 9 9 , th e G o v e rn m e n t m o v e d to d is m is s th e f ra u d c la im . I X A pp. at4514. T he G overnm ent ’ s m ot i on t o di s m i s s w as s i l entas t o w hetherthe di s m i s s al w oul d be w i th orw i thoutpr ej udi ce. H ow ever , i n hi s O r derforE ntryof Fi nal J udgm ent , the j udge s peci fi ed thatthe di s m i s s al w as w i th pr ej udi ce. See O r derforE nt r yof F inal Ju d g m en t Pu rsua n t t o R u le 54 (b), at 2. T h e G o v ern m en t no w arg u es th at th e c o u rt err ed bydi s m i s s i ng the cl ai m w i th pr ej udi ce. W e re v ie w th e tr ia l ju d g e ’s d is m is s a l w ith p re ju d ic e f o r a n a b u s e o f

d is c re tio n . O h land er v . L arso n , 1 1 4 F . 3 d 1 5 3 1 , 1 5 3 6 -37 (10 th C ir . 1 9 9 7 ). O u r rev iew o f th e re co rd convi nces us thatthe tr i al j udge di d notabus e hi s di s cr et i on i n s t at i ng the di s m i s s al w as w ith p re ju d ice . A lth o u g h th e G o v e rn m e n t su g g e sts th a t itw a s b lin d -sid e d b yw h a t it char act er i zes as a compl et el yunexpec t ed dec i s i on bythe tr i al j udge t o di s m i s s the fr aud cl ai m w i th pr ej udi ce, w e thi nk the ci r cumst ance s of the tr i al j udge’ s rul i ng s how otherw i s e. O n M ar ch 16, 1999, the fi ft eenth dayof tr i al ( the tr i al l as t ed tw enty - fi ve day s ) , t he tr i al j udge i nform ed couns el thathe had de ci ded nott o s ubm i tthe comm on l aw fr aud cl ai m t o the j urybeca us e i n hi s vi ew the D O E ’ s conductm ade i ti nel i gi bl e forr es ci s s i on, th e re m e d yf

o r f ra u d . T h e trial ju d g e p lain lyto ld c o u n se l: “W e ll I’m n o t g o in g to su b m it-37-

thatcl ai m . I don’ tthi nk thi s i s a r es ci s s i on cas e. I thi nk they ’ ve w ai ved thatr emedyby th e irc o n d u c t a f

te r t h e yk n e w w h a t th e yk n e w .” V II I A p p . a t 3 5 6 9 (e m p h a s is a d d e d ). O urr evi ew of the r ecor d convi nces us thatcouns el forthe G overnm entr ecogni zed that the tr i al j ud ge w ou l d n ot s ub m i tthe fraud cl ai m t o the j urybecau se coun sel ’s res po nse t o the tr i al j udge w as t o as k thatbefor e the j udge made a form al rul i ng, the G overnm entbe perm i t t ed t o br i ef the i s s ue: “I thi nk thatw e w oul d l i ke – I w oul d as k thatw e be pe r m i t t ed t o s ubm i ts om ethi ng i n w r i t i ng t o Y ourH onorbefor e y ou m ake a fi nal . . . rul i ng on that . ” Id . a t 3 5 6 9 -7 0 . T h e tr ia l ju d g e g ra n te d th e G o v e rn m e n t p e rm is s io n to d o s o . Id . a t 3 5 7 0 . I n thi s s ame exchange , the j udge s ai d he di d notknow “w hyy ou’ ve gota comm on l aw fr aud cl ai m i n thi s cas e. Y ou’ r e j us tconfus i ng the ca s e, and y ou’ r e goi ng t o confus e the j uryand thatdoes n’ thel p y ou. B utthat ’ s y ourcal l . ” V I I I A pp. at3570. T her e i s no i ndi cat i on i n the r ecor d thatthe G overnm entm ade a nyw r i t t en s ubm i s s i on. H ow ever , s even da y s l at er , on M ar ch 23, 1999, couns el forthe G overnm ent a n n o u n c e d i n c o u r tth a th e wa s mo v i n g t o d i s mi s s th e c o mm o n l a w f r a u d c l a i m. He s t at ed: “I do have a uthor i zat i on fr om m yoffi ce t o m ove t o di s m i s s the comm on l aw [fr aud] cl ai m , and I ’ m doi ng s o. ” I X A pp. at4514. G overnm entcouns el m ade no comm enti ndi cat i ng thatthe di s m i s s al w as w i th orw i thoutpr ej udi ce. T he j udge ac cept ed th e G o v e rn m e n t’s s tate m e n t ab o u t d ism iss a l, sa y in g “ A ll righ t,” a n d a d d in g , “S o th a t it w oul d be br eac h of contr actand fa l s e cl ai m s . . . I thi nk thatw i l l hel p i n cl ar i fy i ng the i s s ues , ” t o w hi ch R ockw el l ’ s couns el agr eed. I d. O n M ay13, 1999, the j udge ent er ed an “ O r derForE ntryO f Fi nal J udgm entT hus , the tr i al j udge rul ed fi r s tthatj udgm ents houl d be ent er ed forR ockw el l on 8 the comm on l aw fr aud cl ai m as a mat t erof l aw underFed. R . C i v. P. 50( a) , and then al t ernat i vel ythatcons i der i ng the or al m ot i on t o w i thdr aw as a mot i on underFed. R . C i v. P. 41( a) ( 2) , the j udge or der ed thatdi s m i s s al of the cl ai m “mustbe w i th pr ej udi ce. ” See O r derforE ntr yof Fi nal J udgm ent , at2. B eca us e w e hol d thatthe tr i al courtdi d not abus e i t s di s cr et i on i n di s m i s s i ng the cl ai m w i th pr ej udi ce, w e nee d notaddr es s w hether the courterr ed i n i t s R ul e 50( a) rul i ng. -38- Pur s uantt o R ul e 54( b) . ” Thator derr eci t ed the r eturni ng of j uryver di ct s on A pr i l 1, 1999, f o rth e p l a i n t i f

f s o n th r e e F CA c l a i ms , f i n d i n g s f o rth e d e f

e n d a n to n th e o th e rs e v e n F CA cl ai m s , and on the G overnm ent ’ s cl ai m forbr eac h of contr act . T he or derfur thers t at ed th a t th e c o u rt a l s o ru l e d th a tj u d g me n ts h o u l d e n t e rf o rth e d e f

e n d a n t s , a s a ma t t e ro f

l a w, underFed. R . C i v. P. 50( a) on the cl ai m of the U ni t ed St at es fordamages for comm on l aw fr aud, a cl ai m thatw as nots ubm i t t ed t o the j urybeca us e the G o v e rn m e n t w ith d re w it. In th e a ltern a tiv e , co n sid e rin g th e o ra l m o tio n to w i thdr aw as a mot i on underFed. R . C i v. P. 41( a) ( 2) , the courtor der s that di s m i s s al of the cl ai m m us tbe w i th pr ej udi ce. O r derat1- 2. 8 W e f in d n o e rro r in th e ju d g e ’s in terp re tatio n o f th e G o v e rn m e n t’s o ra l m o tio n to d ism iss as ab an d o n ing the c o m m o n law fra u d claim . R u le 41 (a)(2) p rov ides that af ter a defe ndanthas fi l ed an a ns w er , a pl ai nt i ff mayvol unt ar i l ydi s m i s s a cl ai m onl yupon an order of t he co urt . O hlander, 11 4 F . 3d at15 36 -37. T he rul e al so provides that “[u]nl ess otherw i s e s peci fi ed i n t he or der , a di s m i s s al underthi s par agr aph i s w i thoutpr ej udi ce. ” Fed. R . C i v. P. 41( a) ( 2) . B uta pl ai nt i ff mayvol unt ar i l ydi s m i s s hi s act i on “s o l ong as t he defe ndanti s nothur t , ” and the court ’ s cons entt o vol unt arydi s m i s s al m aybe condi t i oned “upon s uch t erm s and condi t i ons as the courtdeems pr oper . ” M ar l ow v. W i ns t on &-39-

St r aw n, 19 F. 3d 300, 303 ( 7th C i r . 1994) ( quot i ng M cC al l - B eyv. Fr anze n, 777 F. 2d 1178, 1184 ( 7th C i r . 1985) ) . T ypi cal l y , “a c our ti m pos es as a t erm and condi t i on of di s m i s s al [ w ith o u t p re

ju d ice ] th a t p lain tiff

p a yth e d e f

e n d a n t th e e x p e n se s h e h a s in c u rre d in defe ndi ng the s ui t , w hi ch us ual l yi ncl udes r eas onabl e att orney ’ s fee s . ” M ar l ow , 19 F. 3d at 3 0 3 (cit ing 5 M o o re’s F ed era l Pra cti ce , ¶ 4 1 . 0 6 at 41 -81 to 4 1 -86 (19 9 3 )). T h e G o v e r n m e n tr e l i e s , i n t e ra l i a , o n U n i t e d S t a t e s v . O n e T r a c to f R e a l P r o p e r ty, 95 F. 3d 422 ( 6th C i r . 1996) , ar gui ng thatthe tr i al j udge w as obl i ged t o gi ve not i ce t o t he pl ai nt i ff of

hi s i ns i s t ence thatthe di s m i s s al be w i th pr ej udi ce s o as t o perm i tw i thdr aw al of th e m o tio n to d ism iss . Id . at 4 2 6 . T h e S ix th C irc u it n o ted th re e f a c to rs to b e c o n sid e re d in d e ter m in in g w h e th e r a trial ju d g e a b u se d h is d isc re tio n b ya d ism iss a l w ith p re ju d ice “ in resp o n se to a p lai n ti ff ’s req u est fo r dism issal w ith o u t prejud ice.” Id. at 42 5 . T h o se f ac tors w er e s t at ed as : the j udge gi vi ng not i ce of hi s i nt ent i on t o di s m i s s w i th pr ej udi ce; aff or di ng an opportuni tyt o be hea r d i n oppos i t i on t o di s m i s s al w i th pr ej udi ce; and gi vi ng the pl ai nt i ff a n oppor tuni tyt o w i thdr aw the r eques tfordi s m i s s al and pr ocee d w i th the l i t i gat i on. I d. at425- 26 ( ci t i ng J ar ami l l o v. B ur khart , 59 F. 3d 78 ( 8th C i r . 1995) ; M ar l ow v. W i ns t on & St r aw n, 19 F. 3d 300 ( 7th C i r . 1994) ; A ndes v. V er s antC orp. , 788 F. 2d 1033 ( 4th C i r . 1986) ) . W e ar e i m pr es s ed bythes e fa ct or s and opi ni ons , w i th w hi ch w e do not d isag ree . H o w ev er, on ca ref u l con side rati o n o f th e re co rd in this i n stan t case , w e a re per s uaded thatw e ar e pr es ent ed w i th a mat er i al l ydi ffe r entcas e. U n lik e O n e T ra c t, Ja ra m ill o , M a rlo w , an d A n d e s, in e a c h o f w h ich th e p lain tiff

sa id the di s m i s s al w oul d be w i thoutpr ej udi ce, i n the i ns t antcas e the G overnm entm ade no-40-

such st at em ent i n it s m oti on (“I do hav e authori zat i on from m yoff i ce t o m ov e t o d i sm i ss the comm on l aw [fr aud] cl ai m , and I ’ m doi ng s o now , ” I X A pp. at4514) . O n the other h an d there w as n o stat em en t th e d ism issal w as w ith p rejud ice. W e m u st th ere fo re det erm i ne w hetherthe j udge abus ed hi s di s cr et i on, i n the ci r cumst ance s , bys ay i ng i n t he O r derthat“di s m i s s al of the cl ai m m us tbe w i th pr ej udi ce. ” O r derat2. In a sim ilar c o n tro v e rsy, th e S e v e n th C irc u it sa id th e a p p e llate c o u rt’s ta sk is to d e te rm in e w h e th e r t h e in te rp re ta tio n b yth e tr ia l ju d g e w a s a n a b u s e o f d is c re tio n . See B abcoc k v. M cD ani el , 148 F. 3d 797, 799 ( 7th C i r . 1998) ( w her e the pl ai nt i ff’ s m ot i on t o di s m i s s “di d nots peak t o t he i s s ue of pr ej udi ce a tal l , ” the di s tr i ctj udge w as “r equi r ed to interp ret [the m o ti o n ] on e w ayo r th e o ther, an d o u r t ask in rev iew ing the d istri ct co u rt ’s deci s i on i s t o det erm i ne w hetherthe i nt erpr et at i on adopt ed bythe di s tr i ctcourtw as an abu se of d i scr et i on ”). G i ven the co ntexti n w hich the G ov ernm ent’ s m oti on t o d i sm i ss w as m ade he r e i n pr ocee di ngs on M ar ch 23, 1999 ( I X A pp. at4514) , a w eek a ft erthe j udge announc ed on M ar ch 16, 1999, thathe w as notgoi ng t o s ubm i tthe comm on l aw fr aud cl ai m t o the j ury( V I I I A pp. at3569) , w e ar e per s uaded ther e w as no abus e of di s cr et i on i n or der i ng thatthe di s m i s s al “mustbe w i th pr ej udi ce. ” O r derat2. I n thes e ci r cumst ance s , w e ar e per s uaded thatthe j udge di d notabus e hi s di s cr et i on bypr ovi di ng thatthe di s m i s s al m us tbe w i th pr ej udi ce.

VI T o es t abl i s h a vi ol at i on of the FC A , the pl ai nt i ff musts how thatthe def endant-41-

pr es ent ed a c l ai m t o the G overnm entknow i ng i tw as fal s e orfr audul ent . U ni t ed St at es ex rel. A ak h u s v . D yn co rp, 13 6 F . 3 d 6 7 6 , 6 8 2 (10 th C ir . 1 9 9 8 ). T h e d ef en d an t, h o w ev er, m aybe abl e t o cas tdoubton w hetherhe “know i ngl y ” s ubm i t t ed a f al s e cl ai m bys how i ng thatthe G overnm enti t s el f w as al r eadyaw ar e of the fa ct s under l y i ng the FC A cl ai m w hen the al l egedl yfr audul entcl ai m w as s ubm i t t ed. U ni t ed St at es ex r el . B ut l erv. H ughes H eli co p ters, Inc . , 7 1 F . 3 d 3 2 1 , 3 2 6 -27 (9th C ir . 1 9 9 5 ). R o c k w e ll n o w c laim s th a t ittried to d o th is b yp re se n tin g e v id e n c e p u rp o rtin g to s how thatcert ai n m i d and l ow - l evel D O E empl oy ees bel i eved thatR ockw el l had not m i s l ed them. R ockw el l thus ar gues thatthe tr i al j udge err ed i n hi s i ns truct i ons on the i nt entr equi r ementbyi ns truct i ng the j urythatw hen as s es s i ng w hetherthe pl ai nt i ffs had sh o w n th a t R o c k w e ll h a d “ k n o w in g ly ” su b m itt e d f a lse c laim s, th e ysh o u ld c o n sid e r “ a ll di r ectand ci r cumst ant i al evi dence , i f any , conce rni ng w hetherone orm or e governm ent empl oy ees w i th author i tyt o actunderthe R ockw el l contr act s w i th D O E knew the r el evant f a c ts c o n c e rn in g p o n d c re te, s a ltcre te a n d sp ra yirrig a tio n , an d th e c o sts in c u rre d re late d to thos e ac t i vi t i es . ” I X A pp. at5294. R o c k w e ll cla im s th a t th is in stru c tio n lim ited th e p o o l o f G o v e rn m e n t o f

f icia ls to D O E “contr act i ng offi cer s ” onl y , and thus pr ecl uded the j uryfr om cons i der i ng any k n o w led g e o b tain e d b ym id a n d lo w e r-le v e l D O E e m p lo y e e s. C o n se q u e n tly , R o c k w e ll cont ends thatthe j uryw as i m pr oper l ypr ohi bi t ed fr om cons i der i ng pr obat i ve evi dence t hat m id -le v e l an d lo w e r-le v e l D O E e m p lo y e e s w e re a w a re o f th e in f o rm a tio n th a t R o c k w e llSt one ar gues thatw e s houl d notcons i derthi s chal l enge t o the j uryi ns truct i ons 9 beca us e R ockw el l di d notobj ectt o the pr opos ed i ns truct i on attr i al and thus di d not pr es erve the i s s ue forappel l at e r evi ew . W e do notagr ee, and ar e convi nced thatthe i s s ue w as pr oper l ypr es erved. Af t e ri n f o r mi n g th e j u r yth a ti n o r d e rf o rRo c k we l l t o b e l i a b l e f o ra F CA 10 vi ol at i on, the pl ai nt i ffs m us tes t abl i s h that“R ockw el l knew thatthe s t at ement s i tm ade or us ed orcaus ed t o be made orus ed w er e fa l s e, ” the j udge i ns truct ed the j urythat

D efe ndantcl ai m s thatthe governm ent , thr ough var i ous empl oy ees of the D epart m ent of E nergy , had pri or kno w l edg e of f act s r el at i ng t o the fal se sta tem e n ts th a t d e f

e n d a n t alle g e d lym a d e c o n c e rn in g p o n d c re te, s a ltcre te and s pr ayi r r i gat i on oper at i ons atR ockyFl at s . T he governm entdeni es the e x iste n c e o f

su c h p rio r k n o w led g e . In c o n sid e rin g w h e th e r R o c k w e ll know i ngl ym ade a nyfal s e s t at ement s , y ou m us tcons i deral l di r ectand circu m stan ti al ev iden ce , if an y , co n ce rnin g w h ethe r on e o r m o re g o v e rn m e n t em p lo y e e s w ith a u th o rityto a c t u n d e r th e R o c k w e ll co n tra c ts w i th D O E knew the r el evantfac t s conce rni ng pondcr et e, s al t cr et e and s pr ay i rr i gati on , and the co st s i ncu rr ed rel at i ng t o those act i vit i es. G overnm entknow l edge maynegat e the i nt entbydefe ndantr equi r ed t o es t abl i s h a vi ol at i on of the Fal s e C l ai m s A ct . I f y ou fi nd thatgovernm ent em ploy ees w i th au tho ri tyt o act und er the co ntr act s knew the rel evan tfact s, th e n y o u m a yc o n sid e r it in d e ter m in in g w h e th e r R o c k w e ll k n o w in g ly present ed a f

al se st at em ent as t o those fact s. IX App. at 5292- 94. -42- had al l egedl yconce al ed. T he i ns truct i on ati s s ue i s s etouti n the mar gi n. 9 1 0 W e c o n d u ct ou r rev iew d e n o v o to d eterm ine w h ethe r, as a w h o le, the ju ry in stru c tio n s c o rre c tlysta ted th e g o v e rn in g law a n d p ro v id e d th e ju ryw ith a n a m p le under s t andi ng of the i s s ues and appl i cabl e s t andar ds . B r ow n v. G r ay , 227 F. 3d 1278, 1 2 9 1 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 0 ) (cit ing U n it ed S tat es v . Jac k so n , 2 1 3 F . 3 d 1 2 6 9 , 1 2 9 0 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 0 )). W e a re c o n v ince d that the ju d g e’s juryinstruction s o n the in tent req u ir em en t w ereI ndeed, the contr actbetw een Rockw el l and the D O E defi nes a “Cont r act i ng 11 O f f ice r” a s “ a p e rso n w ith th e a u th o rityto e n ter in to , ad m in iste r, an d /o r te rm in a te c o n tra c ts a n d m a k e re late d d e ter m in a tio n s a n d f in d in g s. T h e ter m in c lu d e s c e rta in a u th o riz e d re p re se n tativ e s o f th e C o n tra c tin g O f

f ice r a c tin g w ith in th e lim its o f th e ir authori tyas del egated bythe C on tract i ng O ffi cer. ” V I A pp . at16 69 . T hu s, the p hrase “go vernm ent em ploy ees w i th au tho ri tyt o act und er the co ntr act ” app ears t o en com pass a br oaderr ange of

i ndi vi dual s than does the contr act ’ s qui t e narr ow defi ni t i on of a “ C o n tr a c tin g O f

f ic e r.” W e ar e convi nced thatourdeci s i on i s cons i s t entw i th the N i nth C i r cui t ’ s opi ni on 12 in U n it ed S tat es e x rel. B u tl er v . H u g h es H eli co p ters, Inc . , 7 1 F . 3 d 3 2 1 (9th C ir . 1 9 9 5 ), w hi ch R ockw el l r el i es upon. B ut l err ej ect ed the ar gum entthatforpurpos es of det erm i ni ng w hetherthe def endant“know i ngl y ” s ubm i t t ed a f al s e cl ai m t o the -43- noti n err or . N otw i ths t andi ng R ockw el l ’ s as s ert i ons t o the contr ary , the tr i al j udge di d not i ns tructthe j urythattheycoul d onl ycons i derthe know l edge of the D O E ’ s “contr act i ng offi cer s . ” R ather , the j udge w or ded hi s i ns truct i ons br oadl y , char gi ng the j urythatthey coul d cons i derthe know l edge of al l “governm entempl oy ees w i th author i tyt o actunder the contr act . ” Thus, i ti s cl earfr om the pl ai n l anguage of the i ns truct i ons thatthe j udge di d notl i m i tthe r el evantpool of D O E empl oy ees t o “contr act i ng offi cer s ”; norhas R ockw el l art i cul at ed anyar gum entthatper s uades us thatthe phr as e “gove rnm ent empl oy ees w i th author i tyt o actunderthe contr act ” i s s ynonym ous w i th “contr act i ng offi cer s . ” C ons equent l y , ther e i s nothi ng i n the i ns truct i ons i ndi cat i ng thatthe j uryw as

11 underthe i m pr es s i on thattheyw er e pr ohi bi t ed fr om cons i der i ng R ockw el l ’ s evi dence t hat m id a n d lo w e r-le v e l D O E e m p lo y e e s k n e w o f th e e n v iro n m e n tal, h e a lth a n d sa f e ty viol at i on s atR ock yF l at s. A ccor di ngl y , w e hol d t hatthe tr i al j udge di d noterri n hi s j uryi ns truct i ons on the in ten t re q u ire m e n t. 12G overnm ent , onl ycontr act i ng offi cer s ’ know l edge i s r el evant . I ns t ead, the courthel d t hat

the know l edge of

governm ent“t echni cal r epr es ent at i ves ” mayal s o be cons i der ed. B ec au se, as d iscu ssed ab o v e, w e f ind n o ev iden ce in the instan t case that the ju ry w as i ns truct ed t o r es tr i ctthei rcons i der at i on excl us i vel yt o contr act i ng offi cer s , ther e i s no contr adi ct i on betw een But l erand ourhol di ng her e. -44- V II T he G overnm ent ’ s br eac h of contr acttheoryw as bas ed on the ar gum entthat R o c k w e ll’s f

a ilu re to o p e ra te th e R o c k yF lats f a c ili tyin c o m p lian c e w ith a p p lica b le envi r onm ent al l aw s r epr es ent ed a br eac h of contr act . T o thi s end, the tr i al j udge i n s tru c t e d th e j u r y: T h e g o v e rn m e n t als o a lleg e s th a t d e f e n d a n t b re a c h e d th e D O E /R o c k w e ll contr actthr ough oper at i onal fai l ur es r el at i ng t o defe ndant ’ s pr oduct i on, handl i ng and s t or age of pondcr et e and s al t cr et e atR ockyFl at s . D efe ndant d e n ie s th e g o v e rn m e n t’ s a lle g a tio n s . F or the g ov ernm ent t o recov er on i t s cl ai m for breach o f exp res s contr actr el at i ng t o al l eged ope r at i onal fai l ur es , y ou m us tfi nd the governm enthas pr oven al l of the fol l ow i ng bya pr eponder ance of the evi dence . O ne, defe ndantfai l ed t o us e i t s bes teff or t s i n i t s pr oduct i on, handl i ng ors t or age of

pondcr et e and s al t cr et e. T w o, s uch oper at i onal fai l ur es r es ul t ed fr om w i l l ful m i s conductor l ack o f go od fai th o n the partof the plantm anag er, M r. S anch i ni, or tho se R ockw el l m anage r i al empl oy ees r es pons i bl e t o M r . Sanchi ni , ther eby b re a c h in g th e c o n tra c t. A nd, thr ee, r es ul t i ng damage t o the governm entcaus ed bythe br eac h o f c o n tra c t. IX A p p . at 52 9 9 -30 0 (em p h asis ad d ed ). T h e n , the ju d g e re -e m p h a siz e d to th e ju ryth a t itc o u ld n o t f in d R o c k w e ll l iab le if

itFori t s ar gum enti n the natur e of c ol l at er al es t oppel , the G overnm entpoi nt s t o t he 13 “ P lea A g re e m e n t an d S tate m e n t o f F a c tu a l B a sis ” e n ter e d in U n ited S tate s v . R o c k w e ll In t’l C o rp ., N o . 9 2 -C R -1 0 7 , D istric t o f C o lo ra d o , a d o c u m e n t w h ich w a s a d m itt e d in e v i d e n c e i n th e i n s t a n t c i v i l action as Plaintiff’s Ex. 1. VIApp. at 1861-92. -45- found thatR ockw el l had us ed i t s “bes teff or t s ” t o compl yw i th i t s obl i gat i ons undert he c o n tra c t: U nd er the term s of bo th the 198 6 an d 1 98 9 D O E / R ock w el l con tract s, d e f e n d a n t w a s o b lig e d o n lyto u se its b e st e f f o rts to c o m p lyw ith its re sp o n sib ili ties u n d e r th e c o n tra c t. If th e d e f e n d a n t u se d its b e st e f

f o rts to per form i t s contr actual obl i gat i ons , then def endantw as ent i t l ed t o r ece i ve or r et ai n i t s cos t s forw hati tdi d i n r el at i on t o the contr act , and the governm ent m a yn o t re c o v e r o n its c laim f o r b re a c h o f

c o n tra c t, de sp ite th e f

a ilu re , if any , of d efen dan tt o m eetthe co ntr actual r equ i rem ents . Id. at 53 0 0 (em p h asis ad d ed ). T h e G o v ern m en t no w arg u es th at th e d istri ct co u rterred b o th b yinstructing the ju ry on “bes teff

or t s ” and byfai l i ng t o i ns tructthe j uryt o fi nd R ockw el l l i abl e forbr eac h of contr act . I tcont ends thatbeca us e R ockw el l ’ s contr actw i th D O E i m pos ed a dutyon R ockw el l t o compl yw i th al l appl i cabl e envi r onm ent al l aw s , i ncl udi ng the R es our ce C o n se rv a tio n a n d R e c o v e ryA c t, 42 U .S .C . § § 6 9 0 1 -6 9 9 2 , R o c k w e ll’s g u iltyp lea to vi ol at i ons of thats t atut e conc l us i vel yes t abl i s hes thati tbr eac hed i t s dut i es underthe con tractand that i tcou l d n ot r e-l i t i gate that i ssue. S ee R eplyB r. for A pp el l ee/ C ross 13 A p p e lla n t th e U n ite d S ta te s , a t 6 (c itin g U n ite d S ta te s v . B ro c e , 4 8 8 U .S . 5 6 3 , 5 6 9 (1 9 8 9 )) . T he G overnm entthus ar gues thatthe j udge “i m pr oper l yadded a n i nt entr equi r ementt o t he el ement s of a br eac h of contr actcl ai m ” and s houl d have i ns truct ed the j uryt o fi nd that Roc k wel l b r e a c h e d i t s c o n tr a c twi th DO E.-46-

W e ar e per s uaded thatthe j udge di d noterri n hi s i ns truct i ons . W e ar e convi nced that bot h the t ext of the co ntr act s and rel evan tcase l aw est abli sh t hat the “b esteffo rt s” i ns truct i on w as corr ect . I n the s ect i on of the contr act s ent i t l ed “Scope of W or k, ” i tw as pr ovi ded: T he C on tract or shal l , i n acco rdance w i th the provis i on s of t his con tract , use i t s bes teff

or t s t o m anage , s t aff

, m ai nt ai n, and oper at e the R ockyFl at s Pl ant w ith in av ail ab le fu n d s so as to ca rryo n in an ef ficien t m an n er a ll n ec essa ry and r el at ed s ervi ces and oper at i ons forthe purpos e of de vel opi ng and pr oduci ng ( ats uch r at es , and i n conform ance w i th s uch s peci fi cat i ons , as the C ontr act i ng O ffi cerm aydi r ecti n w r i t i ng fr om t i m e t o t i m e) w eapons component s , as s embl i es , and anc i l l aryequi pm entand forper form i ng r el at ed s ervi ces and oper at i ons w i thi n the t i m e s cal es r eques t ed bythe C ontr act i ng O ff icer. V I A p p . at 17 0 8 (A p p en d ix B to C o n tr ac t, at 1) (em p h asis ad d ed ). W e ar e convi nced thatthi s l anguage r es ol ves the ques t i on of w hetherthe j udge w as c o rr e c t in in s tru c tin g th e ju ry th a t R o c k w e ll o w e d to th e D O E o n ly its “ b e s t e f f o rt s .” M o re o v e r, o u r re v iew o f re lev a n t ca se law c o n f

irm s th a t th e trial ju d g e d id n o t er r in h is i ns truct i ons on t hi s poi nt . Fori ns t ance , M cD onnel l D ougl as C orp. v. U ni t ed St at es , 37 Fed. C l . 295 ( 1997) , i nvol ved an a ct i on br oughti n the U ni t ed St at es C our tof Feder al C l ai m s bydefe ns e contr act or s forequi t abl e adj us t m entand conve r s i on of t erm i nat i on for defa ul t , t o one forconveni ence of the G overnm ent . I d. I n det erm i ni ng the r i ght s of the co n tr ac tors an d the G o v ern m en t, the tri al j u d g e sa id tha t th e “ b est ef fo rt s” stan d ard s um m ar i zes the bas i c natur e of the cos t - r ei m bur s ementcontr act , and thats uch a c ontr act m er el yr equi r es the contr act ort o us e i t s bes teff or t s t o pr ovi de the goods ors ervi ces att he sta ted p ric e . Id . at 2 9 8 (c iti n g G e n e ra l D yn a m ics C o rp . v . U n ited S tate s, 6 7 1 F .2 d 4 7 4 (C t.S p e c if ica lly , in C o u n t O n e o f

th e p lea a g re e m e n t, R o c k w e ll p lea d e d g u iltyto 14 “K now i ng St or age O f M i xed H aza r dous W as t es ( Pondcr et e and Sal t cr et e) i n V i ol at i on of R C R A R equi r ement s , 42 U . S. C . § 6928( d) ( 2) ( C ) ”; and i n C ountT w o, R ockw el l pl eade d gui l tyt o “K now i ng St or age O f M i xed H aza r dous W as t es ( Pondcr et e and Sal t cr et e) w i thouta Perm i torI nt er i m St atus , i n V i ol at i on of R C R A , 42 U . S. C . § 6928( d) ( 2) ( A ) . ” See not e 17, s upr a. -47- C l . 1982) ) . T he j udge conc l uded that“[i ] f, des pi t e i t s bes teff or t s , the contr act orcannot m eeti t s contr actual r equi r ement s , the governm enthas obt ai ned pr eci s el yw hati tbar gai ned f o r, n a m e ly th e c o n tr a c to r’ s b e s t e f f o rt s . . . .” M c D o n n e ll D o u g la s , 3 7 F e d . C l. a t 1 9 8 . A l though t he G overnm ent , i n devel opi ng i t s col l at er al es t oppel theory , r el i es on S ell v . U n it ed S tat es, 33 6 F . 2 d 4 6 7 , 4 7 5 (10 th C ir . 1 9 6 4 ), an d U n it ed S tat es v . R ivera R amos, 856 F. 2d 420, 420 ( 1s tC i r . 1988) , cert . deni ed, 493 U . S. 837 ( 1989) , w e ar e not per s uaded. I n Sel l , thi s courts t at ed thatfi ndi ngs i n a cr i m i nal cas e w er e admi s s i bl e i n t he ci vi l cas e ati s s ue underr es j udi cat a ores t oppel byj udgm entpr i nci pl es , “i ns ofaras s uch f in d in g s d e ter m in e d iss u e s id e n tica l to b o th c a se s.” S e ll, 3 3 6 F .2 d a t 4 7 5 (e m p h a sis add ed, foo tno t e om i t t ed). W e feel, ho w ever, that the is sue of factabo ut m aking “b est eff or t s ” her e t o compl yw i th the contr actual dutyi s notthe s ame as the fa cti s s ues d e ter m in e d b yth e g u iltyp lea in th e c rim in a l ca se . C o n se q u e n tly , alth o u g h R o c k w e ll d id p rev iou slyp lead g u il tyto v iolati n g the R eso u rce C o n serv ati o n an d R ec o v eryA ct, w e a re 14 convi nced thatthi s pl ea di d not , as the G overnm entcont ends , pr ecl ude the j uryfr om f in d in g th a t R o c k w e ll en g a g e d in its b e st e f f o rts a n d th u s th a t itc o m p lied w ith its o b lig a tio n s u n d e r th e c o n tra c t. A fter ca ref

u l con side rati o n o f th is i ssu e, w e a re o f th e o p inion that a re aso n ab le j u ryO f cou rs e, a j urycou l d als o find t hat the d efen dan tdid not use i t s besteffo rt s, 15 a n d th u s th a t itb re a c h e d its c o n tra c t. -48- c o u l d f i n d ( a n d i n th i s c a s e , d i d f i n d ) th a ta d e f

e n d a n twh o v i o l a t e d a p p l i c a b l e l a ws nonethel es s us ed i t s bes teff or t s t o ful fi l l i t s obl i gat i ons underthe contr act , and thus fi nd thatno br eac h occurr ed. A ccor di ngl y , w e hol d thatthe tr i al j udge di d noterrbynot 15 i n s tru c t i n g th e j u r yt o f

i n d th a tRoc k wel l b r e a c h e d i t s c o n tr a c twi th th e DO E.

V III I n s um , w e ar e per s uaded thatthe rul i ngs of the di s tr i ctcourts houl d be af fi r m ed on al l i s s ues exce ptthe i s s ue of pr e- fi l i ng di s cl os ur e di s cus s ed i n Par tI I - E . A s t o thati s s ue onl y , the ca us e i s r emanded t o t he di s tr i ctcourtforthe l i m i t ed purpos e of de t erm i ni ng w h e th e r M r. S to n e sa tisf ied th e p re -f

ili n g d isc lo su re p ro n g o f th e “ o rig in a l so u rc e ” tes t in c o m p lian c e w ith th e sta tu te w h ich re q u ire s th e q u i tam re lato r to h a v e v o lu n tar ily provided the i nfo rm at i on befo re fi l i ng sui t . S ee U nit ed S t at es ex rel . K i ng v. H i l l cres t H ea lth C en ter, 2 6 4 F . 3 d 1 2 7 1 , 1 2 8 0 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 1 ). A s the Supr eme C our tm ade c l eari n V erm ontA gencyof N atur al R es our ces v. U n ited S tate s e x re l. S tep h e n s, 1 2 0 S . C t. 18 5 8 (2 0 0 0 ), q u i tam re lato rs d o n o t lac k A rticle III s tan d in g . T h e F C A ’s q u i tam p ro v isio n s d o n o t v io late A rticle II’s A p p o in tm e n ts C lau se , n o r its T a k e C a re C lau se , at le a st w h e re th e G o v e rn m e n t in ter v e n e s. T h e c o u rt d id notabus e i t s di s cr et i on i n deny i ng the Pl ai nt i ffs ’ m ot i on fora new tr i al fordamages . N or-49-

di d i tabus e i t s di s cr et i on i n pr ovi di ng thatthe G overnm ent ’ s di s m i s s al of i t s comm on l aw fr aud cl ai m m us tbe w i th pr ej udi ce. Fi nal l y , the courtdi d noterri n i t s j uryi ns truct i ons conce rni ng ei therthe know l edge of D O E offi ci al s orw hetherthe contr actobl i gat ed R o c k w e ll o n ly to u s e its “ b e s t e f f o rt s .” A ccor di ngl y , w e af

f i rm i n part and rem and for t he l i m i t ed purposes w e not e. T hi s courtw i l l r et ai n j ur i s di ct i on of thes e appe al s pendi ng the di s tr i ctcourt ’ s pr ocee di ngs and furtherrul i ng on the pr e- fi l i ng di s cl os ur e r equi r ement , fol l ow i ng w hi ch a s uppl ement al r ecor d s hal l be ce r t i fi ed t o thi s courtforfi nal di s pos i t i on. I f the tr i al j udge fi nds ther e w as no pr operpr e- l i t i gat i on di s cl os ur e t o the G o v e rn m e n t b yS to n e , the ju d g m e n t f o r th e G o v e rn m e n t w ill b e m o d if ied a s th e sta tu te r equi r es and the j udgm entforSt one vac at ed. I f the j udge fi nds ther e w as pr oper d isc lo su re b yS to n e to th e G o v e rn m e n t, th e ju d g m e n t f o r S to n e a n d th e G o v e rn m e n t w ill s t and. T hi s courtr et ai ns j ur i s di ct i on t o m ake i t s fi nal di s pos i t i on aft err evi ew of the s uppl ement al r ecor d. I T I S S O OR DE RE D.N o s. 9 9 -1 3 5 1 , 9 9 -1 3 5 2 , 9 9 -1 3 5 3 ; U n ited S tate s e x re l. S to n e v . R o c k w e ll

B R I SC O E , C i rcui t Judge, concurri ng and di s s ent i ng:

I agr ee w i th t he maj or i ty ’ s r es ol ut i on of eve ryi s s ue exc eptfori t s concl us i on t hat J a me s S t o n e q u a l i f

i e s a s a n “ o r i g i n a l s o u r c e ” u n d e r3 1 U. S . C. § 3 7 3 0 ( e ) ( 4 ) ( B) . I n my vi ew , St one has es t abl i s hed onl ythathe had di r ectand i ndepende ntknow l edge of b a c k g ro u n d in f

o rm a tio n p e rta in in g to R o c k w e ll' s p o n d c re te o p e ra tio n s, a n d th u s f a ils to q u ali fyas a n “o ri g inal so u rce ” u n d er § 3 7 3 0 (e)(4)(B ). T he Fal s e C l ai m s A ctdefi nes the t erm “or i gi nal s our ce” as “an i ndi vi dual w ho has di r ectand i ndepende ntknow l edge of the i nform at i on on w hi ch the al l egat i ons ar e bas ed and has vol unt ar i l ypr ovi ded the i nform at i on t o the G overnm entbefor e fi l i ng an ac t i on u n d e rth i s s e c t i o n w h i c h i s b a s e d o n th e i n f o r m a t i o n . ” 3 1 U . S . C . § 3 7 3 0 ( e ) ( 4 ) ( B ) . We have f ur therdefi ned both the type and ki nd of know l edge thatan or i gi nal s our ce/r el at or m us thave. I n U ni t ed St at es ex r el . H aft erv. Spectrum E m er gencyC ar e, I nc. , 190 F. 3d 1156, 1162- 63 ( 10th C i r . 1999) , w e hel d thatt o s at i s fythe “di r ectand i ndepende nt know l edge” r equi r ement , a r el at orm us toffe rm or e than “s econdha nd i nform at i on, s pecul at i on, backgr ound i nform at i on orcol l at er al r es ear ch. ” I ns t ead, w e hel d, the r el at or “mustal l ege s peci fi c fa ct s . . . s how i ng exac t l yhow and w hen he ors he obt ai ned di r ect and i ndepende ntknow l edge of the f r audul ent

act s al l eged i n the com

plai ntan d su p p o rt th o se a lleg a tio n s w ith c o m p e ten t p ro o f.” Id . at 1 1 6 2 (e m p h a sis a d d e d ). W e re c e n tly re a f f irm e d th e typ e a n d k in d o f k n o w led g e re q u ire d o f a re lato r in U n ited S tate s e x re l. K i ng v. H i l l cr es tH eal th C tr . , I nc. , 264 F. 3d 1271 ( 10th C i r . 2001) , emphasi zi ng thatt heI not e the fi r s tcl ai m i n St one' s i ni t i al compl ai nt , fi l ed J ul y5, 1989, w as m uch 1 br oaderthan C ountO ne of the amended compl ai ntupon w hi ch St one and the governm ent u l t i ma t e l yp r e v a i l e d . J u d g e Ca r r i g a n ' s ru l i n g th a tS t o n e wa s a r e l a t o ru n d e rth e F CA pert ai ned t o St one' s i ni t i al compl ai nt . O urfocus i n thi s appea l i s on C ountO ne of the amended compl ai ntand w hetherSt one i s a r el at oras r egar ds thos e cl ai m s . See U ni t ed S tate s e x re l. H a f

ter v . S p e c tru m E m e rg e n c yC a re , In c ., 1 9 0 F .3 d 1 1 5 6 , 1 1 6 4 n .1 0 (1 0 th C ir . 1 9 9 9 ). -2- phr as e “i nform at i on on w hi ch the al l egat i ons ar e bas ed” r efe r s t o “ any es s ent i al el ementof the [ u n d erly ing ] frau d tr an sac ti o n . ” Id . at 12 8 0 (i n terna l qu o tat ion s o m itted). C ountO ne of the amended compl ai nt , as s ert ed j oi nt l ybythe U ni t ed St at es and St one, al l eged thatR ockw el l vi ol at ed the FC A by“know i ngl ypr es ent i ng orcaus i ng t o be pr es ent ed t o the governm entfal s e orfr audul entcl ai m s form oneyorpr operty . ” A pp. at 995. C ountO ne foc us ed on thr ee s epar at e envi r onm ent al , s afe tyand hea l th vi ol at i ons w hi ch R ockw el l al l egedl yconce al ed fr om the governm ent . T he j uryrul ed i n favorof St one and the governm enton one of the thr ee c l ai m s i n C ountO ne. T he j uryconcl uded R o c k w e ll h a d su b m itt e d f a lse c laim s to th e D O E in v io latio n o f th e A c t as re g a rd s its po nd cret e and sal t cret e op erat i on s and aw arded d am ages. T h e q u e stio n b e f

o re u s is w h e th e r S to n e q u a lifie s a s a n “ o rig in a l so u rc e ” w ith r es pectt o t he port i on of the C ountO ne FC A cl ai m s upon w hi ch he a nd the governm ent p r e v a i l e d a ttr i a l . T h o s e p r e v a i l i n g c l a i ms f o c u s e d o n Ro c k we l l ’ s s u b mi s s i o n t o th e DOE of fa l s e s t at ement s r egar di ng i t s pondcr et e and s al t cr et e oper at i ons betw een A pr i l 1, 1987 and Sept ember30, 1988. A s out l i ned above , St one mustdemonstr at e, i n part , thathe had dir ectand i nd epen den tkn ow l edg e of o ne o r m ore of the ess enti al el em ents of those cl ai m s. 1T he maj or i tys ugges t s that , i n l i ghtof the conc l us i ons r eac hed bySt one i n 1982, 2 R ockw el l w as “aw ar e[] thati tw oul d be us i ng a def ect i ve pr oces s form anufa ctur i ng pondcr et e. ” M aj . O p. at27. I thi nk thi s s tr et ches the evi dence t oo far . A l though R o c k w e ll w a s c lea rlya w a re o f S to n e ’s o p in io n s, it is e n tirelyp lau sib le th a t R o c k w e ll m a n a g e m e n t n e v e rth e les s b e liev e d th e p ro p o se d p o n d c re te m a n u f a c tu rin g p ro c e ss w o u ld -3- I ti s undi s put ed thatSt one pos s es s ed s i gni fi cantbackgr ound i nform at i on r egar di ng R o c k w e ll’s p o n d c re te o p e ra tio n s. A c c o rd in g to S to n e , m a n a g e rs a t th e R o c k yF lats fac i l i tybegan c ons i der i ng the i dea of pr oduci ng pondcr et e, i n or dert o di s pos e of s l udge fr om the fa ci l i ty ’ s s ol arponds , i n t he fa l l of 1982. A tthatt i m e, St one w as as s i gned the t as k of s tudy i ng “as pect s of the des i gn pr opos ed byR ockw el l m anage m entform aki ng po nd cret e. ” A pp . at29 8. “A ft er car eful s tud y , [he] con cl ud ed thatthe sug gest ed p rocess w oul d r es ul ti n an uns t abl e mi xtur e thatw oul d l at erdet er i or at e and c aus e unw ant ed re lea se o f

to x ic w a ste s to th e e n v iro n m e n t.” Id . S to n e c o m m u n ica ted h is c o n c e rn s to R o c k w e ll m a n a g e m e n t in a w ritten m e m o . Id . at 2 9 8 , 4 3 9 (“ T h is d e sig n w ill n o t w o rk , in m yo p inion . ”). A cc o rdin g to S ton e, R o ck w ell m an ag em en t nev erthe less “w en t fo rw ard w i th the pr oj ectw i thoutm aki ng the cha nges nece s s ary. . . t o el i m i nat e the i ns t abi l i tyof the pondcr et e bl ocks . ” I d. at299. N otw i ths t andi ng St one’ s backgr ound know l edge, ther e i s no evi dence thathe d ire c tlya n d in d e p e n d e n tlyk n e w a b o u t th e a c tu a l p ro b lem s th a t ar o se w ith th e p o n d c re te a f te r i t w a s p ro d u c e d o r R o c k w e ll’ s e f f o rt s to c o n c e a l th o s e p ro b le m s f ro m th e D O E . I ndeed, St one w as t erm i nat ed fr om hi s empl oym entw i th R ockw el l w el l befor e ei ther eventoccurr ed. T hus , al though St one pr edi ct ed thatpr obl ems w oul d occurw i th the pr oduct i on of pondcr et e, and perhaps m ayhave s pecul at ed thatR ockw el l w oul d conce al 2w or k. I n anyevent , i ti s notR ockw el l ’ s deci s i on t o go forw ar d w i th the pr opos ed

m anufa ctur i ng pr oces s thatgave r i s e t o the C ountO ne FC A cl ai m s . R ather , the C ount O ne FC A cl ai m s ar e bas ed on R ockw el l ’ s conce al m entof ac tual pr obl ems thatar os e af t er the manufactur i ng pr oces s began. -4- anys uch pr obl ems fr om the governm ent , i ti s appar entthathe l acke d the “di r ectand i ndepende nt ” know l edge r equi r ed bythe FC A ’ s “or i gi nal s our ce” pr ovi s i ons . C f. U ni t ed St at es ex r el . A fl at ooni v. K i t s ap Phy s i ci ans Ser v. , 163 F. 3d 516, 526 ( 9th C i r . 1999) ( concl udi ng r el at orw ho offe r ed onl ys pecul at i on and conj ectur e thatdefe ndantcomm i t t ed the a ll eg ed fra u d d id n o t qu ali fyas a n o ri g inal so u rce ); U n it ed S tat es e x rel. K reind ler & K r ei ndl erv. U ni t ed Tech. C orp. , 985 F. 2d 1148, 1159 ( 2d C i r . 1993) ( concl udi ng that pl ai nt i ff, w ho per form ed col l at er al r es ear ch and pos s es s ed bac kgr ound i nform at i on w hi ch enabl ed hi m t o under s t and the s i gni fi canc e of publ i cl ydi s cl os ed i nform at i on, di d not qual i fyas an or i gi nal s our ce) . M or e s peci fi cal l y , St one l acke d di r ectand i ndepende nt k n o w led g e o f

a n yo f th e e ss e n tial e lem e n ts o f th e C o u n t O n e c laim s, i.e., th a t R o c k w e ll a c tu a llye x p e rie n c e d p ro b lem s in its p ro d u c tio n o f p o n d c re te, th a t R o c k w e ll fa iled to di s cl os e thos e pr obl ems t o the governm entand i n fac tr epr es ent ed t o the governm entt hat th e re w e re n o e n v iro n m e n tal p ro b lem s a t R o c k yF lats , o r th a t R o c k w e ll k n o w in g ly conce al ed the true s t at e of a ffa i r s i n or dert o obt ai n benef i t s underi t s contr actw i th the governm ent . See U ni t ed St at es v. M ackby , 261 F. 3d 821, 826 ( 9th C i r . 2001) ( concl udi ng thatthe governm entm us tpr ove thr ee e l ement s t o es t abl i s h a ca us e of a ct i on underthe FC A : ( 1) a “f

al s e orfr audul ent ” cl ai m , ( 2) w hi ch w as pr es ent ed, orcaus ed t o be pr es ent ed, bythe def

endantt o t he U ni t ed St at es forpaym entorappr oval , and ( 3) w i th know l edge-5-

thatthe cl ai m w as fal s e) . T hi s concl us i on i s m ade c l earw hen one c ons i der s thatthe di r ect and i ndepende ntknow l edge pos s es s ed bySt one coul d have be en omi t t ed ent i r el yatt r i al w i tho ut affect i ng the o utcom e of the C ou nt O ne F C A cl ai m s. B e c a u se I c o n c lu d e th a t S to n e c a n n o t q u a lifya s a n “ o rig in a l so u rc e ” w ith re sp e c t to the s u cc essf

u l C o u n t O n e F C A claim s, I w o u ld rev erse the ju d g m en t of the d istri ct co u rt a n d r e ma n d th e c a s e wi th d i r e c t i o n s t o d i s mi s s S t o n e ’ s p o r t i o n o f th e Co u n tOn e F CA cl ai m s forl ack of

s ubj ectm att erj ur i s di ct i on.