Opinion ID: 2305757
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: Original Source

Text: Holding that the public disclosure bar applies to this case does not end our inquiry because, pursuant to D.C.Code § 2-308.15(c)(2)(A), Mr. Grayson's FCA claim can still survive if he establishes that he was the original source of the allegations in his complaint. Mr. Grayson is an original source if he: (1) has direct and independent knowledge of the information on which the allegations are based; (2) voluntarily provided the information to the District before filing an action based on that information; and (3) his information provided the basis or catalyst for the investigation, report, hearing, audit, or media disclosure which led to the public disclosure.. . . [64] Direct and independent means, at a minimum, information derived from one's own efforts and not derived from others. [65] As the Tenth Circuit said in Hafter, supra note 63: To establish original source status knowledge, a qui tam plaintiff must allege specific facts  as opposed to mere conclusions  showing exactly how and when he or she obtained direct and independent knowledge of the fraudulent acts alleged in the complaint and support those allegations with competent proof. Only in this way will the district court be able to adequately identify legitimate qui tam actions and weed out parasitic plaintiffs who offer only secondhand information, speculation, background information or collateral research.[ [66] ] Thus, in order to be an original source, the record must show that the qui tam plaintiff did more than apply his expertise to publicly disclosed information. [S]econd-hand information may [not] be converted into `direct and independent knowledge' simply because the plaintiff discovered through investigation or experience what the public already knew. Instead, the investigation or experience of the relator either must translate into some additional compelling fact, or must demonstrate a new and undisclosed relationship between disclosed facts, that puts a government agency `on the trail' of fraud, where that fraud might otherwise go unnoticed.[ [67] ] As the California Court of Appeal held in Grayson, supra, Mr. Grayson did not work for any of the appellees and he has fail[ed] to allege the who, what, when, where, and how of his generic involvement in the industry giving him firsthand knowledge that these [appellees] were defrauding the government. [68] Instead, Mr. Grayson relies on his experience as an insider in the industry and conversations he had with MCI's former Unclaimed Property Reporting Manager as the basis for his knowledge. But, [n]either the fact that [Mr. Grayson] may have conducted collateral research and investigation nor that his background knowledge enabled him to understand the significance of [appellees'] failure to report establish the requisite direct knowledge within the meaning of the FCA. [69] In addition, even assuming that he qualifies as an original source under the FCA, Mr. Grayson failed to meet the second requirement of original-source status, that he have voluntarily provided the information to the [District] before filing his action. [70] In short, we are satisfied that the trial court correctly concluded that D.C.Code § 2-308.15(c)(2)(A) bars Mr. Grayson's FCA claim. [71]