Opinion ID: 766928
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Harshman as an Original Source

Text: 32 To be an original source, a plaintiff must have direct and independent knowledge of the information on which the allegations are based, and voluntarily provided the information to the Government before filing an action. 31 U.S.C. S 3730(e)(4)(B). 33 It is undisputed that Harshman voluntarily provided the government with his information before he filed this action. Further, Harshman's knowledge was independent because it preceded the public disclosure in the Brooks complaint. See Aflatooni, 163 F.3d at 525. Harshman also  `had a hand in the public disclosure of allegations that are a part of [his] suit,'  a third requirement for original source status. United States ex rel. Devlin v. California , 84 F.3d 358, 360 n.3 (9th Cir. 1996) (quoting Wang, 975 F.2d at 1418). 34 Therefore, the key issue is whether Harshman has direct knowledge of the alleged fraud. We have framed the inquiry as follows: the relator must show that he had firsthand knowledge of the alleged fraud, and that he obtained this knowledge through his `own labor unmediated by anything else.'  Aflatooni, 163 F.3d at 525 (quoting Devlin, 84 F.3d at 361). 35 The district court found that Harshman is not an original source because his knowledge of the facts underlying his allegations is second-hand and because his investigation merely added a legal name to describe the alleged circle of facts. On appeal, Defendants argue that Harshman has failed to establish that he is an original source because his allegations are based exclusively on certain documents for which he cannot identify the source. 36 The district court found that Harshman had failed to demonstrate that he has first-hand knowledge of the alleged fraud. In his affidavit offered in support of his opposition to the motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, Harshman averred that he 37 became aware of the `Work Recovery Program' administered and concocted by Local 1547 of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, through [his] status of a member of Local 1547 andknew about it well before [he] obtained any documents which were submitted by [him] to the Federal Court in this case and the IBEW case. 38 Harshman Aff. P1. 39 However, Harshman's status as a member of the union does not explain how he became aware of the Work Recovery Program. According to Harshman's deposition, only general union dues have been withheld from his paycheck, not job targeting dues; he has not signed an authorization form allowing job targeting dues; he has never participated in the negotiating, drafting, or implementation of the Inside Agreement; and he does not allege that he played any role in submitting false claims to the government. As the district court noted, most everyone in Local 1547 knew of the work recovery program, and all plaintiff added by way of his investigation was a legal name to describe the alleged circle of facts. 40 Therefore, we are left with Harshman's mere assertion that he learned of the alleged fraud due to his status as a member of the union. Because this assertion is insufficiently specific to determine that Harshman learned of the allegations first-hand, the district court did not clearly err in finding that Harshman was not an original source under 31 U.S.C. S 3730(e)(4). 6