Opinion ID: 77158
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Limit on Discovery

Text: 31 Walker also challenges the district court's decision to limit discovery in the case to the date range of her employment as a nurse practitioner at LFM. She correctly states that, if, in limiting the temporal scope of discovery, the district court made a clear error of judgment ... or ... applied an incorrect legal standard, we must reverse that decision. Peat, Inc. v. Vanguard Research, Inc., 378 F.3d 1154, 1159 (11th Cir.2004) (citing Alexander v. Fulton County, 207 F.3d 1303, 1326 (11th Cir.2000)). 4 32 We find that the district court misconstrued the False Claims Act when it limited discovery to the term of Walker's employment. We therefore reverse the discovery order. Under the False Claims Act, any person may serve as a qui tam relator. 31 U.S.C. § 3730(b). The relator need not have any relation at all to the defendant. Id. Neither is there a requirement that the relator suffer injury at the hands of the defendant in order to state a claim under the False Claims Act. Id. The United States is the real party in interest in a qui tam action under the FCA even if it is not controlling the litigation. United States ex rel. Dimartino v. Intelligent Decisions, Inc., 308 F.Supp.2d. 1318, 1322 n. 8 (M.D.Fla.2004) (citing United States ex rel. Rodgers v. Arkansas, 154 F.3d 865, 868 (8th Cir.1998); United States ex rel. Hyatt v. Northrop Corp., 91 F.3d 1211, 1217 n. 8 (9th Cir.1996); United States ex rel. Milam v. University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, 961 F.2d 46, 48-49 (4th Cir.1992)). 33 Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, discovery is limited to matter[s], not privileged, that [are] relevant to the claim or defense of any party .... Relevant information need not be admissible at the trial if the discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(1). Thus, Walker should have been permitted discovery of all information relevant to her claims, on behalf of the United States, that false claims for payment were made by LFM. 34 An examination of the Amended Complaint, the operative pleading in this case, demonstrates that Walker alleges that LFM submitted false claims from at least the time of Walker's hiring 5 into the undefined future. Paragraph 11 of the Amended Complaint recounts a conversation that Walker allegedly had with LFM's office manager, Gail Mayer. As part of that conversation, Mayer allegedly told Walker that LFM never billed nurse practitioner and physician assistant services as independent services but rather always billed them as services incident to the service of a physician and that if LFM were to bill the nurse practitioner and physician assistant services as independent services, it could not afford to employ [Walker]. Amended Complaint ¶ 11. The same paragraph further alleges, LFM's Medicare billing practices did not change subsequent to [Walker's] conversation with Gail Mayer. Id. Paragraph 9 of the Amended Complaint states, Since [Walker's] employment with LFM, LFM has employed at least two more nurse practitioners and two more physician's assistants. Thus, the Amended Complaint does not limit the allegations of false claims to the time period during which Walker was employed by LFM. Rather, it alleges an ongoing practice of false billing from the time Walker began working as a nurse practitioner at LFM, in February 1997. The proper temporal range for discovery is February 1997 through the date of the original complaint.