FI L ED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V E N T H C IR C U IT OCT 25 , 2006 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [PUBLIS H] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ N o. 05- 1118 7

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ D. C. Docket N o. 00-01637 CV -T W T- 1 LI LL I E R
. B A TT LE , i n d i v i du a l l y, U N IT E D S T A T E S O F A ME RI CA , e x r el , Pl ai nti ff s- Appe llants , ve rs us BOARD OF REGENTS FOR THE STATE OF GEORGIA, JEA NE TT E K . H UF F, OS CAR L. PRA TE R, D ef en dants -Appe lle es , CYN TH IASE LL ER S, in their indiv idual and official capacities as e m

ploy ees of the U niversity Sy stem of G e o r g i a , jo i n t l y an ds e v e r a l l y, D ef en dant.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ __ Appeal f rom the United State s District Court fo r the N orthe rnD istri ct

of G eo rg ia

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ __ (O ct ob er 25, 200 6)2

Be fo re E D MO N D SO N , Ch ie f Judg e, BL A CK and F A Y , Ci rc uit

Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M: Pl ai nti ff L ill ie Battl e (“ Pl ai nti ff

”) appe al s th e dis tr ic t c ourt' s gr an t of
summ ary j udgm ent to Def

endants Jeanette K. Huff

and Oscar L . P rater ( “D e f e n d a n t s ” ) , a g a i n s tP l a i n t i f f ’s F i r s tA me n d me n tR e t a l i a t i o n an dF a l s e C l a i ms A c tc l a i ms . We a f

f i rm.

I. Ba ck gr ound

T ak ing the r ec or d inthe li ght m ost f av or ab le to the P la int if

f, the se e ve nts
ar e the f ac ts a s th ey

oc curr ed
. P la int if

f w orke d inthe O ff

ic e of F inanc ia l A id and Ve terans A ffair s (“ OF A” ) at F ort Va lley State University

(“ FV SU ”) betw een 1987 and 1 998. I n S pr ing Q uart er 199 5, w hil e w orkin g a s aw ork st udy supe rv iso r an d ve te rans a ff ai rs c ouns el or , P la int if

f be gan to obs er

ve and d oc um en t wha t s he be li ev edwere fra ud ul en t p ract ic es in th e Fed eral W or k S tu dy Prog ram . Pl ai nti ff too k no te s and m ad e co pie s of sus pic iou s do cum en ts, w hic h sh e sto re d in
a sa fe -d ep osi t bo x a t ho m e. I n January 199 6, the O FAw as r eo rg an iz ed ; and Pl ai n t i ff ’s p o s i t i o n ch an g ed t o fi n an ci al ai dco u n s el o r. As p ar to f P l ai n t i ff ’s
em plo ym en t du tie s, she w as r equir ed to ve ri fy the c om ple tio n and a cc ur ac y

ofThe e valuation cr iticiz ed that (1) Pl aintiff “a llows student workers too much [sic] li berties a nd 1 responsibilities,” which “c ontributes larg ely to client dissatisfaction”; (2) Plaint i ff n eeds “ more self-c onfidenc e and a ssertivene ss”; and (3) Plaintiffs’ “per formanc e has not lived up to her potential.” 3 student files as w ell as report any perce ived fraudulent activity . S om e student files previousl y

handled byPlaintiff’ s superviso r, OF A D irector Jeanette Huff (“ Huff ”),
we re transferre d to Plaintiff. I n exam ining these files, Plaintiff discovered

“ im pr opr ie tie s” poi nti ng t o w ha t sh e be lie ve d w as “ H uf f’ s f ra udul en t m ish an dli ng
an d m is m an ag em en t o f Fed eral fin an ci al aid fun ds .” Plaintiff fir st confronted Huff a bout these im

proprieties in 19 96, but Huff
w as dis m iss ive and m ad e no c or re ct ion s. I n late 199 6, “ ove rwhe lm ed ” by the
ev ide nc e of

f ra ud, P la int if

f m et w ithF V SUP re sid en t O sc ar P rate r (“ Pr at er ”) and tol d hi m that H uf f w as f al sif y ing inf orm at ion , aw ar din g f

inanc ia l a id t o in el igi ble
re ci pie nts , m ak ing e xc es siv e aw ar ds, and f or gin g do cum en ts. P rate r sa id n oth ing in response to Plaintiff’ s accusations and to ok no rem edial steps. Pla intiff confronted Huff on oth er occ asions with folders Plaintiff believed contained im pr opr ie tie s, but

H uf f m ad e no c or

re ct ion s. InMarc h 19 98, P la int if

f re ce ive d ar at ing of

“ E xc ee ds E xpe ct at ion s” - - the
se co nd h igh es t ava ila

ble c at eg or

y - - on h er annua l pe rf

orm an ce e va luatio n. T he
ev al ua tio n, how ev er , a lso c ont ai ne d c ri tic ism s of P la int if f’ s pe rf orm an ce . A ll of

1In a letter dated 25 Ma

y 1998, Plaintiff wrote to Huff that she wa s not surprised she was be ing 2 transfe rre d due to “t h e n egative, a nd unfair e valuation [she] rec eived f or the 1997-98 pe riod.” Plaintiff also wrote in the comment section of her 1998 evaluation that “Ifee l that Iam beingtreated unfairly .” The score on Plaintiff’s 1998 evaluation was orig inally 3.54, but was increase d by Huff to 3.7 after

Plaintiff complained. 4 Pl ai nti ff ' s pr ior e va luatio ns h ad

r at ed he r pe rf orm an ce a s “ E xc ee ds R equir em en ts”
or “ O uts tandi ng. ” D es pit e the hig h sc or e, P la int if f w as not ple as ed w ithhe r 1998
ev al ua tio n. 2 Plaintiff ar

ranged a m eeting with Huff ’ s direct supervisor, FV SU Vice -Pr esident of Student Affa irs Cy nthia Sellers (“ Sellers” ), during which Plaintiff com

plained that her perform ance r eview w as unfairly low. Seller s advis ed P la int if f that, ba se d onthe sc or e, P la int if f’ s e va luatio n w as not

ba d and that sh e w oul d li ke ly

r ec ei ve ar ai se . D ur ing the sam e m ee tin g, P la int if f tol d Sellers that “ Huff

wa s doin g stuff that was going to get ou r instituti on in trou ble” and awarding stu dents aid for which they we re ineligible. P laintiff w arned Se llers th atsh e “ was go in g t o t el l” un le ss ch an ge s wer e m ad e. Sel le rs res po nd ed , “ Do
w ha t y ou h av e to d o. ” P la int if f the n sc he dul ed

ase co nd m ee tin g w ithP re sid en t Pr at er to dis cu ss h er

pe rf orm an ce e va luatio n and “ to r ei te rate the im pr opr ie tie s [ of
w hic h sh e] ha d a lr ea dy

inf orm ed him in pr ior y ears . ” D ur ing the m ee tin gs w ith Prate r and Seller s, P laintiff did not identify specific student files that had been5

m ish an dle d or

pr ovi de doc um en tary

e vid en ce - - w hic h P la int if f be gan c oll ec tin g in 1 995
-- to supp ort he r al le ga tio ns o f fr au d. On 25 May

1998 , P laintiff rec eived a letter indicating the contract for her po si ti on as f

in an ci al aid co un se lo r wou ldno t b e ren ewedeffe ct iv e 3 0 J un e 1 99 8. T he le tte r ind ic at ed

P la int if f ha d be enappr ove d f

or tr an sf er to a posi tio n ina differe nt FVS U depar

tm ent, but Plaintiff w as later inform ed that no po sition wa s
av ai la ble
. P la int if

f ap pe al ed

the non -r en ew al of

he r co ntr ac t thr oughF V SUand the Board of Re gents of the University Sy stem of G eorgia, alleging her contract
wa s not renewed bec ause of her attem pts to exp ose Huff

’ s fraud. A grievance
co m m itt ee inv es tig at ed , c ondu ct ed an e vid en tiary

he ar ing , and u

phe ld the de ci sio n
no t t o re ne w. Pl ai nti ff ne ve r spok e to any one out sid e of F V SUabout

H uf f’ s f ra udul en t act iv it y un ti l af te r sh e rec ei ve d n ot ic e th athe r co nt ract wou ldno t b e ren ewed . A
m onth a ft er

r ec ei vin g no tic e, P la int if f m et w iththe D ep ar

tm en t of E duc at ion (“ D O E ”) and p ro vid ed

six ty -o ne pa ge s of

doc um en ts s how ing pot en tia l f ra ud and
a thi rty -tw o pa ge ana ly sis of stu de nt f ile s. Fr om Jun e 1998 to Fe br

uary 199 9, the G eo rg iaD ep ar tm en t of A udi ts
co nduc te d an in de pe nde nt annua l audi t of F V SUthat r ev ea le d se ri ous
noncom pliance with fe deral re gulatio ns and risk factors for fr aud. T he auditorsPlaintiff a lso a lleg ed wrong ful termination in violation of the FCA, substantive and pr ocedur al 3 due proc ess violations, and state law c laims for wrong ful termination and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Plaintiff voluntarily dismiss ed the state l aw claims. The district cour t dismi ssed the re ma ini ngc la ims in a Se pte mbe r 2 00 1 o rd e r t

hat Pla int if

f d id n ot a

pp e a l. 6 fo rm ed no o pin ionon whe the r the non co m pli an ce w as int en tio na l. S ubse que nt
au dit s a lso r ev ea le d si m ilar pr obl em s. H uf f tr an sf er re d ou t of the O FAin Jul y 1999 and r es ign ed

in May 200 0. I n Apr il 2002 , F V SUr ea ch ed a$2, 167, 941 settlem ent with the D OE to settle questio ned costs id entified by the state auditors in au di ts fro m

19 97 -2 00 0 a nd in li eu of f ur th er fi le rev ie w. In June 200 4, Pla intiff filed suit in th e district court, a lleging (1) she w as dis ch ar ge d invio la tio n of the F ir st A m en dm en t f

or r ep ortin g he r co nc er

ns a bout fr au d, and ( 2) H uf

f, S el le rs , and P rate r know ing ly sub m itt ed

f al se or f ra udul en t cl ai m s to the U nit ed

S ta te s invio la tio n of

the F al se Cl ai m s A ct

( “ FC A ”) , 31 U. S. C. §§ 372 9 et seq. T he district court concluded th at D efendants we re 3
en tit le d to qua lif

ie d im m uni ty on P la int if

f’ s F ir st A m en dm en t c la im be ca use the
m oti va tio n f

or P la int if f’ s sp ee chw as unc le ar

and p re ex ist ing c as e lawdid not giv e D ef en dants f ai r w ar nin g th at P la int if f’ s sp ee chm

ust be tr eate d a s “ a m atte r of publ ic concern” under the c ircum stances. T he district court also conclud ed that Plaintiff’ s FCAclaim s wer e barr ed by 31 U. S. C. § 373 0(e)( 4)(A ) because they relied on publ icly

disclosed in form ation for which Plaintiff wa s not an “ original7

source.” T he district court granted summ ary j udgm ent on bo th claim s. P laintiff
or igi na lly appe al ed the gr an t of

sum m ar y j udgm en t a ga ins t H uf

f, P rate r, and Se lle rs but

la te r dis m iss ed

the appe al of

c la im s a ga ins t S el le rs .

II
. D isc uss ion

W e re vie wadis tr ic t c ourt or de r gr an tin g su m m ar y j udgm en t de nov o, vie w ing the e vid en ce and a ll re as ona ble inf er en ce s dr awn f

ro m it in the li ght

m ost favor ab le to the non m ovi ng p ar ty . C of ie ld v
. G oldkis t, I nc . , 267 F
. 3d 1 264, 126 7 (1 1thCi r. 200 1)
. S um

m ar y j udgm en t i s a

ppr opr ia te w he n th e ple ad ing s, de posi tio ns, and a ff

idavit s su bm itt ed by the part ie s sh owthat no ge nui ne iss ue of
m at eri al fact ex is ts an d t ha t t he m ov an t i s en ti tl edto jud gm en t as a m at te r of law. Fed. R. Civ. P . 56(c)
.
A
. Fi rs t A m en dm en t R et al ia tio n C la im For a public em

ploy ee to sustain a claim

of reta liation for protected speech unde r the F ir st A m en dm en t, the e m plo y ee m ust sho wby apr ep onde ranc e of

the
ev ide nc e the se thi ngs:8

(1 ) the e m

plo y ee ’ s sp ee chis on a

m atter of

pub lic c onc er

n; ( 2) the em ploy ee’ s First A m endm ent interest in en g ag i ng in th e speech outw ei ghs the e m

plo y er ’ s inter es t i n pr ohi bit ing the spe ec h to pr om ote the e ff

ic ie nc y of the pub lic se rv ic es it

pe rf orm s th ro ugh its em plo y ee s; and ( 3) the em

plo y ee ’ s spee ch play ed

a“ subs tanti al part ” in the em

ploy er’ s decision to dem ote or discharge the em ploy ee. O nc e the e m

plo y ee suc ce ed s insho w ing the pr ec ed ing f ac tor s, the bur de n the n shi ft s to the em plo y er to show , by a pr ep onde ranc e of the ev ide nc e, that “ it w oul d have r ea ch ed the sam e de ci sio n . . . e ve n in the absence of the protected c ondu ct.”
A nde rs on v . Burk e Co unty , G a. , 239 F
. 3d 1 216, 121 9 ( 11th C ir
. 200 1) ( quot ing Mt
. H ea lth y

Ci ty S ch
. D ist
. Bd
. of

E duc
. v. D oy le , 97 S
. Ct
. 568 , 576 ( 1977 ))
. T he fi rs t tw o e le m en ts are que sti ons of lawde sig ne d to de te rm ine w he the r the F ir st A m en dm en t pr ote ct s th e em plo y ee ’ s sp ee ch
. T he thi rd e le m en t and a ff

irm at ive de fe nse are que sti ons of

f ac t de sig ne d to de te rm ine w he the r the a dve rs e
em plo ym en t a ct ionw as in re ta liatio n f or the pr ote ct ed

spe ec h. I d. Inde te rm ini ng whe the r a publ ic e m plo y ee ’ s sp ee chis en tit le d to
co nst itu tio na l pr ote ct ion , w e m ust f ir st a sk “ w he the r the e m

plo y ee spo ke a s a ci tiz enon a

m atte r of pub lic c onc er

n. I f the answ er

is no, the e m

plo y ee ha s no Fi rs t A m en dm en t c au se of a ct ionba se d onhis or

he r em plo y er ’ s r ea ct ionto the speech.” G arce tti v. Ceballos, 126 S. Ct. 1951 , 1958 (2006) (citations o m itted); see also Morgan v. F ord, 6 F. 3d 75 0, 754 (11th Cir. 1993) (“ [W ] e consider
w he the r the spe ec h a t i ssu e w as m ad e pr im ar ily in the e m plo y ee ’ s r ole a s c iti ze n,9

orpri m ari ly in t he rol e o f em pl oyee.” (ci ta ti on s an d i nt ern al qu ot at io ns om it te d) ).

“ [W ] he n publi c em

plo y ee s m ak e state m en ts p ur suant t o th ei r of fi ci al dut ie s, the
em plo y ee s are not

spe ak ing a s c iti ze ns f

or F ir st A m en dm en t purp ose s, and the Constitu tion d oes not in sulate their com m unication s from

em ploy er discipline.” G ar ce tti , 126 S
. Ct
. a t 19 60. In Ga rc et t i , t h e S up re m e C o u rt co n cl u d ed th at a d ep u t y d i s t ri ct at t o rn ey’s spe ec h w as not

pr ote ct ed

by the F ir st A m en dm en t w he re the a tto rn ey te sti fi ed in court and wrote in a dispo sition m em orandum that he believed the affidavit used to o bta in a

c ri tic al se ar chw ar

rant i n ac ri m ina l c as e co nta ine d se ri ous
m isr ep re se ntatio ns. T he “ co ntr oll ing f ac tor ” in the Co urt’ s de ci sio n w as that the de puty ’ s “ expr es sio ns w er e m ad e pur suant t o hi s du tie s a s ac al en dar de puty . ” Id
. at 195 9- 60. Whe n an e m

plo y ee spe ak s a s ac iti ze n a ddr es sin g am atte r of pub lic co nc er n, the F ir st A m en dm en t requ ire s ade lic at e ba lanc ing of the co m pe tin g inte re sts su rro un di ng th e sp eech an d i ts co ns eq ue nc es . W he n, however, the em

ploy ee is sim

ply perform ing his or her j ob du ties, there i s n o wa rr a n tf

o r as i mi l a r d e g r e e o f

s c r u t i n y. Id
. a t 19 61. T he Co urt r ej ec te d th e ide a that the na tur e of pub lic e m

plo ym en t transform s a public em

ploy ee’ s statem ents into a m atter of public concern pr ote ct ed by the F ir st A m en dm en t:10

Re s t ri ct i n g s p e ec h th at o we s i t s ex i s t en ce t o a p ub l i c e m p l o yee’s professional respons ibiliti es does not in frin ge any l i be r t ies the em

ploy ee m ig ht ha ve en

joy edas a pri va te cit iz en . . . .

. . . .

. . . . E m plo y ee s w ho m ak e publ ic state m en ts o uts ide the c our se of pe rf orm ing the ir

of fi ci al dut ie s r et ai n so m e poss ibi lity of F ir st A m en dm en t pr ote ct ionbe ca use that i s th e kind of ac tiv ity en ga ge d in by ci tiz en s w ho d o no t w ork f or the gove rn m en t. T he sa m e goe s f or w ri tin g a letter to a local newspaper , o r d iscussin g poli tics with a co-w orker . W he n a public e m

p l o y e e s p e a k s p u r s u a n tt o e m p l o ym en t re spon sib ili ti es , how ev er , the re is no r el ev an t ana log ue to spe ec h by ci tiz en s w ho are not

gov er nm en t e m plo y ee s. Id. at1 96 0- 61 ( c i t a t i on s om i t t e d)
. A l t ho ug h t he C ourta c kn ow l e dg e d t hat

“ [e ] xpos ing gov ern m en ta l i ne ff ic ie nc y and m isc ondu ct

is a m atte r of

c onsi de ra

ble sig nif ic an ce , ” the Co urt c onc lud ed the pub lic int er es t w as pr ote ct ed by oth er m eans, includi ng a “ powerf

ul network o f l eg islative enactm ents -- such as w histle-blo we r pr ote ct ionlaw s and l ab or c ode s” - - not

by pe rm itt ing F ir st A m en dm en t re ta liatio n cl ai m s b as ed on “ ex pr es si on s em pl oyees m ak e pu rs ua nt to th ei r pr of es si on al du ti es .” Id
. a t 19 62. In this case, Plaintiff adm itted that she had a clear em ploym ent dutyto ensure the a cc ur ac y

an d co m

pl ete ne ss o f stu de nt f

ile s a s w el l a s to r ep ort anyPlaintiff’s deposition transcr ipt contains t he following ex chang e between Pl aintiff and D efe ndant 4 Hu ff ’s c ouns e l: Q: Was it part of your re sponsibili ty in takingover the handlingof these f iles to chec k the fi le s o r a

ud it the fi le s to see wh e the r the re wa s any mis mana g e me nt or fr a ud in the fi le s? A: I t was par

t of my responsibility

to make sure it was complete a nd acc urate . Q : If a f i l e h a d f r a u d u l e n ta c t i v i ty i ni to r

w h atyo u p e r c e i v e d

t o b e f r a u d u l e n ta c t i v i ty, wa s it pa rt of y our r e sp on sib ili ty

to r e po rt that? A: Ye s. In 1999, the National Association of Student F inancial Aid Administrators issued a Peer Review 5 Re po rt to F VSUc ov e ri ngits fi na nc ia l a id a c tiv iti e s f

or 19 97 -9 8. Th e re po rt inc lud e d a re min de r t o a ll f ina nc ia l a id w or

ke rs of the fo llo wi ngguid e lin e fr om t he DO E’ s 1 99 7- 98 Ve ri fi c atio n Guid e : I f you suspect an a

pplicant, employ ee, or

other indiv id

u a l h a s mi srepor

ted information and/or a lte re d do c ume ntatio n to inc re a se his or he r s tud e nt a id e lig ibi lity or to f ra ud ule ntl y ob ta in fede ral funds, y ou should report your suspicions (and pr ovide any evidenc e) to the O ffice of Inspector G ener al (OI G) or to loca l law enf orce ment officia ls. 11 m ism anagem ent or fra

ud she encoun tered in the s t u d en t financial aid files. In 4 ad dit ion , D O E G uid el ine s re qui re al l fin an ci al ai d wor ke rs to re port suspe ct ed

f ra ud. 5 Pl ai nti ff a lle ge s he r co ntr ac t w as not re ne w ed be ca use of he r “ co nti nuou s e ff orts t o expose the fraud within FV SU ’ s Financial Aid De partm ent.” These e fforts consisted of attem pts to d isclose to bo th Prater and Sellers that he r s u p er v isor, H uff, wa s
m aking im

proper financial aid aw ards and falsify ing inform ation in student files. By Pl ai nti ff ’ s own adm iss ion an d in the li ght of f ed er al gui de lin es , P la int if f’ s sp ee chto FV SUof fi ci al s a bout ina cc ur acies a nd s ign s of f ra ud i n st ude nt f ile s w as m ad eIn Plaintiff’s supplement al b ri ef ad d ressing Ga rce tti, she attempts to li mit the scope of he r 6 admission by

claiming her only employ ment duties relate d to her c ontrol and over sight of f inancial aid information provided b y ce rt ain students, and not to the discover y of fr aud by

her supe rvisor, Hu ff . Pl a int if f f ur the r a rgue s th at sh e ha d n o o ff

ic ia l a ud iti ng duty to dis c ov e r fr a ud be c a us e the State of Geor g ia perf

ormed an annual audit of the financ ial aid files. Reg ardle ss of whethe r Plaintiff had a duty to l oo k f or fr a ud , th e se a sse rt ion s do no t a lte r the un c ontr ov e rt e d fa c t that on c e Pla int if f d id dis c ov e r m ism ana g e me nt o r f ra ud wi thi n any of

the stu de nt f

ile s, sh e ha d a

c le ar d uty to r e po rt thi s information. The i s s u e in Garc etti was whe ther a public employ ee w as speaking pur suant to an of fi c ia l duty , n ot whe the r t

hat duty wa s p art of the e mpl oye e ’s e ve ryda

y job fu nc tio ns . Be cause we c onclude that Plaintiff has not be en depr ived of a First Amendme nt rig ht, we do not 7 r e a c hth e i s s u e o f

qu a l i f i e d i m mun i ty. 12 pur suant to he r of

fi ci al e m plo ym en t r es pons ibi lit ie s. W e co nc lud e that be ca use the 6 Fi rs t A m en dm en t pr ote ct s sp ee chon m atte rs of pub lic co nc er

n m ad e by a gove rn m en t
em plo y ee spe ak ing as a ci tiz en , not as an em plo y ee fu lf

ill ing of fi ci al r es pons ibi lit ie s, Pl ai nti ff ’ s r et al ia tio n c la im

m ust f ai l. S ee G ar ce tti , 126 S
. Ct
. a t 19 61. 7

B
. F C A C l a i ms T he dis tr ic t c ourt di sm iss ed P la int if f' s F ed er al Cl ai m s A ct

c la im ba se d on the following jurisdictional bar: No court shall have j urisdictio n over [an FC A qui tam ac t i o n ] based uponthe pub lic dis cl osur e of a lle ga tio ns or tr an sa ct ion s in a c ri m ina l, ci vil , or a dm ini str at ive he ar ing , in a co ngr es sio na l, a dm ini str at ive , or G ove rn m en t A cc ount ing O ff ic e re por t, he ar ing , audi t, or

inv es tig at ion , or from the news m edia, unless
. . . the person bring ing th e action is an or igi na l so ur ce of

the inf orm at ion
.13

31 U
. S. C. § 37 30( e) (4 )( A ). T his Co urt us es athr ee -p ar t i nqui ry to de te rm ine j ur isd ic tio n ov er

an F CAc la im

ba se d onpub lic ly

dis cl ose d in fo rm at ion : “ (1 ) ha ve the a lle ga tio ns m ad e by

the pla int if

f be enpub lic ly

dis cl ose d; ( 2) if

so, is the disclos ed inform ation the basis of the plaintiff’ s suit; (3) if y es, is the plaintiff an

‘ or igi na l so ur ce ’ of

that i nf orm at ion
. ” Co ope r v. Bl ue Cr oss and B lue S hie ld o f Fl or ida , I nc . , 19 F
. 3d 5 62, 565 n. 4 ( 11th C ir
. 199 4)
. T he F CA“ is m ost na tur al ly
re ad to pr ec lud e sui ts b as ed

in anypar t

on pub lically

disclosed in form ation.” Id. at 567. Ther efore, a plaintiff basing an FCAqui tam claim in any part on such publ icly disclosed in form ation m ust dem onstrate that the plainti ff is an original source of that inform ation. T he FCAdefines “ original so urce” as “ an indiv idual
w ho h as dir ec t and i nde pe nde nt k now le dge of

the inf orm at ion on w hic h th e all egati ons are bas ed an d ha s vo lun tari ly pr ovi de d th e inf

orm at ionto the Governm ent before f

iling an action.” 31 U. S. C. § 373 0(e)( 4)(B) (em phasis add ed). In the district court, P laintiff “ refe r[r ed] De fendants to the audit s perform ed by the S ta te of

G eo rg iaD ep ar

tm en t of A udi ts and A cc ount s onJun e 30, 199 8 and June 30, 199 9” and i ndi cate d P la int if f w oul d “ se ek

a ll da m ag es a llo w ed

und er the Fa l s e C l ai m s Ac tfo r t h es e v i o l at i o n s .” Pl ai n t i ff ’s ap p el l at e b ri ef

s t at es th at “ [i ]n
as se rt ing dam ag es in thi s c as e unde r the F al se Cl ai m s A ct , pla int if f re lie s onthe
re sul ts o f the state audi ts a s w el l a s ‘ ac co m pany ing not es a lr ea dy

. . . pr oduc ed

by14

plaintiff.’ ” Bec ause Plaintiff' s FCAclaim s rely chiefly on inform ation that was publ icly disclosed in the 1997 -1998 and1998 -1999 st ate audits, the cla im s are barred unless Plaintiff qualifies as an original source. W e have com

m ented that the FCAdoes not im pose a strict tracing rule that would require the re lator to trace the allegations from the disclosi ng agency

back th ro ug h t he go ve rn m en t b ur eau crac y to th e rel at or . Coo pe r, 19 F.3d at 5 68 n.1 3. Nonetheless, the F CA m andates that, to qualify as an original source, a

plaintiff
m ust have dir ec t and i nde pe nde nt k now le dge of

the inf orm at ionon whic h th e al le gatio ns are ba se d. I n othe r w or ds, apla int if f ne ed not e sta bli sh h er se lf

a s the
or igi na l so ur ce of

the pub lic ly

dis cl ose d in fo rm at ionbut m ust e sta bli sh tha t sh e is
an or igi na l so ur ce of

the inf orm at ionin that sh e ha d di re ct and i nde pe nde nt kn o w l e d g e o f

th e i n f o rma t i o n o n w h i c h s h e i s b a s i n g h e r F C A c l a i m. H er e, P la int if

f’ s a lle ga tio ns are ba se d c hie fl y on the 199 7- 1998 and 1 998- 1999 state audi ts; and s he f ai le d to pr ovi de f

ac ts t o th e dis tr ic t c ourt tha t m igh t
es ta bli sh h er se lf

a s an or igi na l so ur ce of

the inf orm at ionc ont ai ne d inthe state
au dit s. A lth oughP la int if

f ne ed not tr ac e the f

lowof inf orm at ionf

ro m he rs el f to the DO E to the state a

udit reports, summ ary

j udgm ent was proper

because Pla intiff failed to provide the dis trict court w ith specific fac ts sho wing that she had direct and independ ent knowledge of the audit findin gs on which she bases her FCAIn this appeal, and for the first time, Plaintiff attempts to introduc e evide nce of a link betwee n 8 he r o wn ind e pe nd e nt r e se arc h o f i mpr op ri e tie s a t F VSUand so me of th e fi nd ing s o f t he state a ud ito rs on wh ic h s he ba se s h e r c la im. Pla int if f’ s a pp e llate br ie f a sse rt s th at “ the re wa s c omm on a lity wi th 1 1 s tud e nt f

ile s amou nti ng to ov e r $1 00 ,0 00 in m isa pp ro pr iate d f

e de ra l st ud e nt a id. ” B e c a

us e this arg ument is made for t he first time on appea l, we do not consider it here
. Acc ess Now, Inc. v. Southwest Airlines Co., 385 F.3d 1324, 1331 (11th Cir. 2004) (“This Court has repeatedly held that an issue not ra ised in the district court and r aised for the first time in a n appea l will not be considered by this court.” (citations and internal quotations omitted)); FDI C v. Vere x Assuranc e, Inc., 3 F .3d 391, 395 (11th Cir. 1993) (“ By well settled conve ntion, appellate c ourts g ener ally will not consider an is su e or

the or y that w a s no t rai sed i n th e dis tr ic t c ourt .” ). “ I f w e we re to r e gula rl y a dd re ss questions --par

ticularly fac t-bound issues -- that district[ ] cour t[ s] neve r had a chanc e to examine, we would not only

waste our

resour ces, but a lso deviate fr om the es s en t i al nature , purpose, a nd competenc e of a

n appellate court.” Acc ess Now, Inc., 385 F .3d at 1331. 15 cl ai m s. N one of

the f ac ts a s e vid en ce d by

P la int if f ind ic at e that sh e part ic ipate d in the state audi ts o n w hic h sh e re lie s or that sh e dis cl ose d in fo rm at ionto the
au dit or s. Mo re im

portant, P la int if

f doe s no t r ef

er to he r ow n r es earc h or doc um en ta tio n to pr ove that sh e ha d di re ct and i nde pe nde nt k

now le dge of

the fi ndi ngs co nta ine d inthe state audi ts. 8 W e co nc lud e Pl ai nti ff

is no o ri gin al sourc e as de fi ne d un de r the statut e because she lacked direc t and independ ent knowledge of the publ icly disclosed inf orm at ionon whic h he r cl ai m s are ba se d: n am el y , the state audi ts. T he re fo re , the district court properly

dism issed Plaintiff's FC A c laim s as j urisdictio nally barre d be ca use P la int if

f' s a lle ga tio ns s ubst an tia lly r el y on i nf orm at ionin the pub lic ly di sc lo se d s ta te au di t re po rts forwhi ch Pla in ti ff was no “ or ig in al so ur ce.” Be ca use the y are unn ec es sary

to our de ci sio n, w e do n ot r ea chD ef en dants ’ alternative ar gum ents that (1) Plaintiff c ouldnot qu alify as an original source16

because her j ob required her to report fr aud, ar guablym aking her disclos ure invo luntary ; (2) the $2 m illion settlem ent betwee n FVS U and the DO E w as an

“ al te rn at e re m edy ” unde r 31 U
. S. C. § 37 30( c) (5 ); ( 3) the se ttl em en t w as ar el ea se
or an acc ord and satisfaction of Plaintiff’ s qui tam claim s; (4) Plaintiff pr esented insufficient evidence that Def endants kn owingly

subm itted false claim s; or (5) that H uf f co uld not be he ld v ic ar iou sly

li ab le f or a ct s of the e m plo y ee s sh e supe rv ise d. AFFIR MED.