Opinion ID: 759793
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Public Disclosure by Schumer's Allegations

Text: 27 The first issue we must resolve in analyzing the jurisdictional status of Lujan's post-1986 allegations is whether Schumer's earlier allegations constituted public disclosure of the misconduct underlying Lujan's complaint. In other words, if Lujan's allegations are substantially similar to Schumer's, then the wrongdoing was publicly disclosed and Lujan's qui tam claims must be dismissed unless Lujan is an original source of the information. As set forth above, we review the district court's factual findings for clear error. Adler, 107 F.3d at 729. However, even if we were to review the district court's comparison of Lujan's and Schumer's complaints de novo (the district court conducted no factual inquiry beyond an examination of the complaints and the record), we would affirm the district court's determination that the allegations are substantially similar. 28 The record supports this conclusion. The subject matter of Schumer's action was four defense contracts between Hughes and the United States-the F-14D Program contract (F14 contract), the F-15 Radar Multistage Improvement Program Contract (F15 contract), the F-18 Radar Upgrade Program Contract (F18 contract), and the B-2 Special Programs Contract (B-2 contract). The B2 contract involved the design of an advanced radar system for that airplane. Hughes managed each of these contracts under commonality agreements, which permit each program using a common component to share in some portion of its development and production costs. 29 Schumer alleged that Hughes used these commonality agreements to misbid, misallocate, and mischarge costs among the four contracts. For example, Schumer alleged that Hughes charged the development of a radar signal processor to the F15 contract but then also charged these developments costs to the F14, F18, and B2 contracts. 30 Lujan's allegations also concern the contract to develop the B2 radar system. Lujan alleges that, between 1982 and at least 1989, Hughes routinely mischarged costs associated with the design and development of various B2 radar system contracts. She also alleges that Hughes mischarged costs on contracts involving the F14, F15, and F18 by means of the commonality agreements governing cost allocations among the various radar system programs. 31 The Schumer and Lujan allegations both involve cost-sharing transactions among and within the radar system programs on four aircraft. The two claims involve the same commonality agreements and the same radar program contracts. In sum, we agree with the district court that Lujan's allegations are substantially similar to those disclosed in the earlier Schumer action, thereby constituting public disclosure of Lujan's qui tam claims within the meaning of the 1986 version of the False Claims Act. 32