Court Opinion

ID: 9482095
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 08:40:09.153499+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:48:45.611958
License: Public Domain

*1162SCIRICA, Circuit Judge,
dissenting.
Congress strengthened the qui tam provisions of the False Claims Act to encourage more people to bring to light non-public information regarding fraud. As a Senate report noted, the “overall intent in amending the qui tam section of the False Claims Act is to encourage more private enforcement suits.” S.Rep. No. 99-345, 99th Cong., 2d Sess. 23-24 (1986) [hereinafter “Senate Report”], reprinted in 1986 U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News 5266, 5288-89. This suit is barred under the majority opinion even though it could have proceeded under the restrictive pre-1986 law that Congress intended to liberalize. Because the majority’s holding reduces the incentives for private citizens to act upon nonpublic information garnered during most phases of civil litigation, and because its interpretation of “original source” would bar many relators who voluntarily make information public, I respectfully dissent. I believe the plain language of § 3730(e)(4), and the policy underlying it, reveal that Congress did not intend to impose such restrictions on qui tam suits.
The majority finds that “public disclosure” occurred when non-public documents were handed over to a private party during privately conducted discovery, holding that whenever information not subject to a protective order is obtained through discovery during civil litigation, there has been “public disclosure in a civil hearing.” It therefore finds “public disclosure” regardless of whether the information is available to the public when it is disclosed. By contrast, I would find that public disclosure did not occur until the Provident memoranda were actually disclosed to the public. Furthermore, under the majority’s interpretation, Stinson cannot qualify as an “original source” because it received the information through an “intermediary.” Because Stin-son was itself responsible for publicly disclosing the documents, I would find that Stinson is an “original source.” My interpretation of original source would not depend on how a relator obtained information prior to public disclosure. I believe this interpretation of § 3730(e)(4) is in accord with Congress' intent to encourage more qui tam actions without engendering unnecessary suits based upon information already publicly available.
I. HISTORY OF THE FALSE CLAIMS ACT
As the majority notes, the False Claims Act was originally enacted in 1863 in response to abuses by government contractors during the Civil War. See Act of Mar. 2, 1863, ch. 67, 12 Stat. 696. The original statute contained broad qui tam provisions that permitted any person to prosecute a claim on behalf of the government and receive half of the amount recovered. Id. at §§ 4, 6, 12 Stat. 698. These provisions, however, were rarely used in the decades following their enactment.
A. THE 1943 AMENDMENTS
In United States ex rel. Marcus v. Hess, 317 U.S. 537, 63 S.Ct. 379, 87 L.Ed. 443 (1943), the Supreme Court held that a person could maintain a qui tam action based on information copied from a government criminal indictment. The government had argued against allowing this suit, in part because an expansive reading of the qui tam provisions “might bring unseemly races for the opportunity of profiting from the government’s investigations.” Id. at 547, 63 S.Ct. at 386. The Court held that the plain language of the statute belied the government’s contentions, and noted that Congress was the proper body to change or eliminate the Act’s qui tam provisions. Id. Justice Jackson dissented, arguing that the suit should not be permitted since “[i]t is not shown that [the relator] had any original information, that he had added anything by investigations of his own, or that his recovery is based on any fact not disclosed by the Government itself.” Id. at 558, 63 S.Ct. at 391 (Jackson, J., dissenting).
In response to the government’s concerns, Congress amended the statute in 1943. See Act of Dec. 23, 1943, ch. 377, 57 Stat. 608; United States v. Pittman, 151 F.2d 851, 853-54 (5th Cir.1945) (discussing legislative history of 1943 amendments), *1163cert. denied, 328 U.S. 843, 66 S.Ct. 1022, 90 L.Ed. 1617 (1946). The government had pressed for a total repeal of the qui tam provisions, and the House of Representatives passed a bill to that effect. The Senate passed a bill that would have retained the qui tam provisions while eliminating the specific abuse involved in Marcus. The Senate bill would have barred actions “unless based upon information, evidence, and sources original with such person and not in the possession of or obtained by the United States in the course of any investigation or proceeding instituted or conducted by it.” 89 Cong.Rec. 10744 (1943). See also id. at 10845 (conference report) (describing Senate proposal as barring suits based on information known to the government, unless the information was obtained from the person bringing suit). The final law adopted the Senate proposal, but without the original source language. As enacted, the 1943 law barred qui tam suits that were “based upon evidence or information in the possession of the United States, or any agency, officer or employee thereof, at the time such suit was brought.” 31 U.S.C. § 232(C) (1982) (superseded).
The deletion of the original source language brought about perverse results. For example, in United States ex rel. Wisconsin v. Dean, 729 F.2d 1100 (7th Cir. 1984), a state government was not allowed to maintain a qui tam action based on information it had gathered in its own investigations, because the state had supplied the government with the information prior to instituting its action. The court followed the weight of precedent in holding that the jurisdictional bar applied when the government has the relevant information, even when the qui tam relator was the source of that information. Id. at 1103. See also Safir v. Blackwell, 579 F.2d 742 (2d Cir.1978), cert. denied, 441 U.S. 943, 99 S.Ct. 2160, 60 L.Ed.2d 1044 (1979); Pettis ex rel. United States v. Morrison-Knudsen Co., 577 F.2d 668 (9th Cir.1978); United States v. Aster, 275 F.2d 281 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 364 U.S. 894, 81 S.Ct. 223, 5 L.Ed.2d 188 (1960).
The result was particularly harsh in Dean, because the state was required by another statute to submit the information to the federal government, and the federal government preferred that the state prosecute the case. In June, 1984, the National Association of Attorneys General strongly urged Congress to rectify the problem encountered in Dean. See Resolution III, NatAss’n.Atty.Gens. (June, 1984), reprinted in 131 Cong.Rec. 24483 (discussed in Senate Report at 13).
B. THE FALSE CLAIMS AMENDMENTS ACT OF 1986
As noted above, the drafters of the 1986 amendments clearly intended to overcome the restrictive effect of the 1943 amendments and expand the availability of qui tam actions. However, they also did not want to restore the opportunity to bring “parasitic” suits like that encountered in Marcus. See, e.g., 132 Cong.Rec. H6483 (daily ed. Sept. 9, 1986) (statement of Rep. Bedell). See also False Claims Act Implementation: Hearing Before the Sub-comm. on Admin. Law and Gov. Relations of the House Comm, on the Judiciary, 101st Cong., 2d Sess. 5 (1990) [hereinafter 1990 Implementation Hearing] (1986 amendments “sought to resolve a tension between ... encouraging people to come forward with information and ... preventing ‘parasitic’ lawsuits”) (Statement of Sen. Grassley).
One difficulty in interpreting the 1986 amendments is that Congress was never completely clear about what kind of “parasitic” suits it was attempting to avoid. The primary problem in Marcus was that the relator had acted on information developed by the government in its own investigations, and therefore provided the government with no new information. As the government argued in Marcus, such a situation creates “unseemly races for the opportunity of profiting from the government’s investigations.” 317 U.S. at 547, 63 S.Ct. at 386. The 1943 amendment appeared to recognize this as the main problem when it barred suits based on information known to the government. Stinson would most likely have been able to sue under the 1943 law, as it does not appear *1164that the government possessed the relevant information before Stinson filed suit.
But during the 1986 legislative process, Congress also saw a problem with suits based on certain “publicly disclosed” information, regardless of whether the government knew about the information, or acted on it. As noted below, I believe Congress felt that certain information available to the general public would likely reach the government, and consequently that qui tam suits would be unnecessary in those instances. Of course, the fact that information is “public” does not guarantee that it will find its way to the relevant government officials. But Congress seems to have decided that it is better to take this risk with respect to some publicly available information than to allow potentially unnecessary private suits.
The False Claims Amendments Act underwent various revisions before it was finally enacted. Most of the language that is disputed in this case was inserted through “technical” amendments after the bill left the Senate Judiciary Committee. I agree with the majority that legislative history of this type should not be afforded great weight. But because the final version contains a number of ambiguities, I find it useful to examine previous versions to discern the precise meaning of the final language.
1. Bill as Introduced in Senate (August 1, 1985)
On August 1, 1985, a bill entitled the False Claims Reform Act was introduced in the Senate. As originally proposed, the bill’s relevant revisions were concerned only with those “parasitic” suits based on information disclosed by the government or the news media. The original bill contained the following language, to be codified at 31 U.S.C. § 3730(b):
(5) Unless the Government proceeds with the action within 60 days after being notified, the court shall dismiss the action brought by the person if the court finds that—
(A) the action is based on specific evidence or specific information the Government disclosed as a basis for allegations made in a prior administrative, civil, or criminal proceeding; or (B) the action is based on specific information disclosed during the course of a congressional investigation or based on specific public information disseminated by any news media.
S. 1562, 99th Cong., 1st Sess. § 2, at 3 (1985) (emphasis added). Under this version, Stinson would have been able to maintain this suit, because the relevant information was not disclosed by the government or the news media.
In addition, this version allowed suits even where a specified disclosure was made, if the government failed to act after learning of the information:
If the Government has not initiated a civil action within six months after becoming aware of such evidence or information, or within such additional time as the court allows upon a showing of good cause, the court shall not dismiss the action brought by the person.
Id. at 4 (emphasis added).
During hearings on this bill, the Justice Department objected to any revision of the existing qui tam provisions, claiming that expanding the scope of such actions would hinder government investigations. See False Claims Reform Act: Hearing on S. 1562 Before the Subcomm. on Administrative Practice and Procedure of the Senate Comm, on the Judiciary, 99th Cong., 1st Sess. 20-21 (1985) (testimony of Jay Stephens, Deputy Associate Attorney General). It objected in particular to the six month requirement, noting that “[tjhere are several legitimate reasons why the Department might choose not to bring a civil action on the basis of information in its possession.” Id. at 43 (statement of Jay Stephens). The Department’s main concern was that expansive qui tam provisions would unduly cabin its prosecutorial discretion.
2. Bill as Reported Out of Senate Judiciary Committee (July 28, 1986)
The Senate Judiciary Committee addressed some of the Justice Department’s *1165concerns, such as the potential for frivolous suits and suits filed for political motives. See 31 U.S.C. § 3730(d)(4) (1988) (penalties for frivolous suits); id. § 3730(e)(2)(A)-(B) (barring some suits against government officials). But the expanded qui tam provisions were retained when the bill was reported out of committee. Newly proposed § 3730(e) contained the following language:
(4) In no event may a person bring an action under this section based upon allegations or transactions which are the subject of a civil suit in which the Government is already a party, or within six months of the disclosure of specific information relating to such allegations or transactions in a criminal, civil, or administrative hearing, a congressional or Government Accounting Office report or hearing, or from the news media.
Senate Report at 43 (emphasis added).
Thus, this version allowed relators to file actions regardless of public disclosure, if the government did not act within six months. Under this language as well, Stin-son could have maintained this action, because the government has declined to act. However, one problem with this version was that it provided no explicit protection for those people who provide information that is later disclosed. If the six month requirement were deleted, this omission would threaten to repeat the problem the 1943 legislation had caused with respect to information possessed by the government — a relator would be barred simply because he relayed information to others. As noted below, I believe the “original source” language was later inserted to address this concern.
The intent of the Committee is also demonstrated by proposed provisions establishing a sliding scale of fee awards to qui tam relators. The lowest level of recovery was mandated for those relators whose actions were based “solely” on the public disclosures described in proposed § 3730(e). See Proposed § 3730(d)(4), reprinted in Senate Report at 43. The accompanying Senate Report noted that this provision was designed
to prevent any “windfalls” for persons who may not have had direct involvement with investigating or exposing alleged false claims that are the basis of a qui tam suit, in the very limited area where the qui tam action is brought at least 6 months after a public disclosure, the Government has failed to act, and the suit succeeds.
Senate Report at 16, 1986 U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News 5281. The Committee recognized that it might appear “inappropriate” to compensate such relators at all, but stated that “[t]he Committee believes a financial reward is justified in these circumstances if but for the relator’s suit, the Government may not have recovered.” Id. at 28, 1986 U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News 5293. The Committee therefore did not adopt a strict public disclosure bar, and believed it proper to compensate relators who eventually prosecute actions based on public information.
This understanding was also shared by the House of Representatives, which on September 9 passed False Claims Act amendments with qui tam provisions similar to those in the Senate Committee version. See H.R. 4827, 99th Cong., 2d Sess., 132 Cong.Rec. H6474-78 (daily ed. Sept. 9, 1986). In passing this bill, the House rejected a version of the Senate bill as amended on August 11, see infra, which contained different qui tam language. Congressman Bedell, a sponsor of the House bill, expressed concern about “parasitic” suits, but understood this problem to refer only to actions based on information already known to the government and upon which the government intends to act:
[Tjhere may be many cases where evidence is somewhere in the hands of some Government official, even if the Government does not have the evidence in organized form or even knows it has the information. H.R. 4827 allows the court to dismiss a citizen’s action brought upon evidence previously disclosed under certain circumstances, but also provides that the court shall permit the suit if the Government was aware of the information for 6 months and took no action. *1166This addresses the legitimate concern about parasitic suits.
132 Cong.Rec. H6483 (statement of Rep. Bedell). See also H.R.Rep. No. 99-660, 99th Cong., 2d Sess. 22-23 (1986).
3. August 11 Senate Amendments The relatively clear understanding of the Senate Committee was unsettled by the adoption of “technical and clarifying” amendments introduced on August 11 by Senator Grassley, one of the bill’s original sponsors. The amendments greatly changed the provisions at issue here. Newly proposed § 3730(e) contained the following changes:
(4) In no event may a person bring an action under this section based upon allegations or transactions which are the subject of a civil suit or an administrative civil money penalty proceeding in which the Government is already a party., or within six months-of
(5)(A) No court shall have jurisdiction over an action under this section based upon the public disclosure of specific information relating to-suGh allegations or transactions in a criminal, civil, or administrative hearing, a congressional, administrative, or Government Accounting Office report, or hearing, audit or investigation, or from the news media, unless the action is brought by the Attorney General or the person bringing the action is an original source of the information.
(B) For purposes of this paragraph, “original source” means an individual who has direct and independent knowledge of the information on which the allegations are based and has voluntarily informed the Government or the news media prior to an action filed by the Government.
132 Cong.Rec. 20531 (1986).
Thus, the amendment split old subsection (4) into two new subsections, one addressing civil suits involving the government and one addressing the disputed “public disclosures.” The six month requirement was deleted entirely, and the “original source” language appears for the first time. In addition, the provision addressing awards to qui tam relators was changed to require the lowest recovery for those rela-tors whose actions are based “primarily” upon publicly disclosed information, instead of “solely” as in the Committee version. See Proposed § 3730(d)(4), reprinted in 132 Cong.Rec. 20531 (1986).
Senator Grassley described these revisions as follows:
Several minor changes will be made in the qui tam section of S. 1562. Specifically, jurisdiction for qui tam actions based on information that has been publicly disclosed will be limited to those people who were “original sources” of the information....
This amendment seeks to assure that a qui tam action based solely on public disclosures cannot be brought by an individual with no direct or independent knowledge of the information or who had not been an original source to the entity that disclosed the allegations.
In the definition of “original source,” the requirement that the individual “voluntarily” informed the Government or news media is meant to preclude the ability of an individual to sue under the qui tam section of the False Claims Act when his suit is based solely on public information and the individual was a source of the allegations only because the individual was subpoenaed to come forward. However, those persons who have been contacted or questioned by the Government or the news media and cooperated by providing information which later led to a public disclosure would be considered to have “voluntarily” informed the Government or media and therefore considered eligible qui tam re-lators.
The use of the term “Government” in the definition of original source is meant to include any Government source of disclosures cited in subsection (5)(A); that is, Government includes Congress, the General Accounting Office, any executive or independent agency as well as all other governmental bodies that may have publicly disclosed the allegations.
The amendments also limit the possible portion of the judgment recoverable by a *1167qui tam plaintiff to 10 percent or less when the action is based primarily on public information. This limitation will affect those persons who have brought a qui tam action based almost entirely on information of which they did not have independent knowledge but had derived from a public source.
132 Cong.Rec. at 20536.
4. October 3 Senate Amendments
On October 3, the Senate passed new amendments, which also were proposed by Senator Grassley. These amendments again made substantive changes to the relevant language, which now reached its final form. The following changes were made to the original source exception:
(B) For purposes of this paragraph, “original source” means an individual who has direct and independent knowledge of the information on which the allegations are based and has voluntarily informed provided the information to the Government or the news media prior to- an action filed by the Government before filing an action under this section which is based on the information.
132 Cong.Rec. 28576 (1986). Thus, the major substantive change was that the news media was specifically dropped from the voluntary disclosure clause. It is unclear why “an action filed by the Government” was changed to one filed by the relator.
Changes were also made to the provisions involving awards to qui tam relators. See Proposed § 3730(d)(1), reprinted in 132 Cong.Rec. 28576. Senator Grassley clarified this subsection as follows:
When the qui tam plaintiff brings an action based on public information, meaning he is an “original source” within the definition under the act, but the action is based primarily on public information not originally provided by the qui tam plaintiff, he is limited to a recovery of not more than 10 percent. In other words a 10-percent cap is placed on those “original sources” who bring cases based on information already publicly disclosed where only an insignificant amount of that information stemmed from that original source.
Id. at 28580.
5. House Adopts Senate Bill
On October 7, the House adopted the Senate bill as amended. Representative Berman, one of the sponsors of the House bill, submitted “legislative history,” which stated in relevant part:
The final bill has adopted the Senate version of who may file an action under the False Claims Act. Before the relevant information regarding fraud is publicly disclosed through various government hearings, reports and investigations which are specifically identified in the legislation or through the news media, any person may file such an action as long as it is filed before the government filed an action based upon the same information. Once the public disclosure of the information occurs through one of the methods referred to above, then only a person who qualifies as an “original source” may bring the action. A person is an original source if he had some of the information related to the claim which he made available to the government or the news media in advance of the false claims being publicly disclosed. This person has the right to bring an action after these disclosures are made public as long as it is filed before an action is commenced by the Government. ...
The only exception to [the] minimum 15% recovery is in the case where the information has already been disclosed and the person qualifies as an “original source” but where the essential elements of the case were provided to the government or news media by someone other than the qui tam plaintiff.
132 Cong. Rec. 29322 (1986) (emphasis added). This legislative history reveals that it was drafted prior to the October 3 amendments, even though the bill voted on by the House incorporated those changes. Regardless, Representative Berman appears to have understood that a plaintiff is barred only when the public disclosures *1168were made by the government or the news media.
II. APPLICATION OF § 3730(e)(4) TO THIS CASE
In applying § 3730(e)(4) to this case, three questions must be addressed. First, was there a public disclosure of relevant information prior to the filing of this action? Second, if such public disclosure occurred, did it occur in a “civil hearing”? Third, if the relevant public disclosure occurred, does Stinson qualify as an original source? The majority finds that “public disclosure” occurred when Stinson first uncovered the Provident memoranda during pretrial discovery, that this disclosure occurred during a “civil hearing,” and that Stinson does not qualify as an “original source.” I would find that public disclosure did not occur until Stinson filed the documents with the Florida court, and that Stinson qualifies as an original source because it was responsible for this disclosure. I would not reach the issue of whether pretrial discovery constitutes a “civil hearing.”
A. PUBLIC DISCLOSURE
As the majority holds, § 3730(e)(4) applies only when information has been publicly disclosed prior to the filing of a qui tarn action based in some part on that information. If there has been no public disclosure, then the action may proceed, provided it does not fall within any other jurisdictional bar. If there has been public disclosure, only an “original source” may bring an action.1
The majority holds that information is “publicly disclosed” within the meaning of § 3730(e)(4) whenever it is disclosed in litigation to a party who is under no court imposed limitation as to its use. Majority Op. at 1158. It recognizes that the Provident memoranda were not publicly available when they were disclosed to Stinson. Nevertheless, it finds public disclosure because the information might have become available to the public at some later date, if it had been obtained in federal court litigation. By contrast, I would find that information has been publicly disclosed only when it has actually been disclosed to the public. The Provident memoranda were *1169not available to the general public when Stinson obtained them, and therefore I do not believe they were “publicly disclosed” at that time. Congress believed that a qui tam incentive system is generally unnecessary when information is publicly available. But by permitting qui tam suits based upon non-public information, Congress provided incentives for private individuals to report instances of fraud which the government would not otherwise have reason to know about. I do not believe Congress intended to bar relators who obtain non-public information simply because that information might become public at a later time.
This interpretation comports with the plain language of the statute, and is supported by legislative history, case law, and sound policy concerns. The plain language of the statute is of course the most persuasive evidence of Congress’ intent. The term “public disclosure” plainly refers to information available to the general public at the time of disclosure. Congress was clear about the kind of disclosure that would bar qui tam suits. The August 11 amendments specifically inserted the word “public” before the word “disclosure.” See 132 Cong.Rec. 20531 (1986). The public disclosure bar is a limited exception to the general proposition that any person with information regarding fraud may file suit. If information has not been publicly disclosed, any otherwise eligible relator can maintain an action. See 132 Cong. Rec. 29322 (1986) (“Before the relevant information regarding fraud is publicly disclosed ... any person may file such an action ....”) (legislative history submitted by Rep. Berman).
The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently has underscored that § 3730(e)(4) applies only to information disclosed to the general public. In United States ex rel. Hagood v. Sonoma County Water Agency, 929 F.2d 1416 (9th Cir.1991), the relator was a government attorney who allegedly discovered fraud when he was asked to prepare a contract. Intervening on behalf of the defendant, the government contended that the suit was barred by § 3730(e)(4). It claimed that the information learned by the relator while preparing the contract had been “publicly disclosed.” The court rejected this argument. It noted that the statute was “remarkably explicit” and held that the relator “does not base his suit on any public disclosure made to him or anyone else. He bases his suit on information that he acquired in preparing the contract; the information was not publicly disclosed.” Id. at 1419. See also United States ex rel. Williams v. NEC Cory., 931 F.2d 1493, 1500 n. 11 (11th Cir.1991) (rejecting similar argument).
Although the legislative history is not crystal clear, it supports this interpretation of the statutory language. The disclosure language was originally inserted in conjunction with the provision permitting suits based on public information if the government failed to act within six months. One rationale for the six-month requirement was that the relevant government officials may not know of some publicly disclosed information, and allowing qui tam actions after six months would ensure that the information is brought to light. See H.R.Rep. No. 99-660, 99th Cong., 2d Sess 22-23 (1986); 132 Cong. Rec. H6483 (daily ed. Sept. 9, 1986) (statement of Rep. Be-dell).
Thus, the public disclosure language referred to information that the government would likely discover on its own. In these cases, qui tam suits would provide little to the detection of fraud, and private rewards would be unnecessary. But when the information has not been publicly disclosed, private rewards would help bring it to light. As one court has noted:
It is evident from reading § 3730(e)(4) that Congress intended to bar parasitic qui tam suits, that is, lawsuits based on public information. By allowing a relator to collect money for his role in a qui tam action, the government obviously hopes to encourage private persons to report incidents of fraud against the government. However, it will usually serve no purpose to reward a relator for bringing a qui tam action if the incident of fraud is already a matter of public *1170knowledge by virtue of “public disclosure.”
United States v. CAC-Ramsay, Inc., 744 Supp. 1158, 1159 (S.D.Fla.1990).
In this way, Congress retained the general intent behind the 1943 amendments, which barred those “parasitic” suits based on information known to the government. As discussed below, I believe the original source exception was inserted to ensure that a relator who was responsible for public disclosure would not be barred, thus avoiding the major defect of the 1943 legislation. By predicating § 3730(e)(4) on information disclosed to the general public, rather than information known to the government, Congress extended the bar somewhat.2 However, the general purpose remained the same. When it predicated the bar on public disclosure, Congress referred to information that would likely reach the government without the incentive of a qui tarn suit. I can discern no reason why Congress would be concerned about information that has not yet been disclosed to the general public.
The majority relies on the proposition that if the Provident memoranda had been disclosed in federal court litigation, they might have become available to the public after they were obtained by Stinson. It notes the general presumption under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure that discovery materials will be available for public inspection at some point, and deems it irrelevant whether the materials have in fact been publicly filed at the time of disclosure. The majority also finds it unimportant that the production of the Provident memoranda was not governed by the federal rules upon which it relies. By contrast, I would determine whether there has been public disclosure by examining what actually occurred la the case. I see no indication that Congress was concerned with information that might have become public if it had been obtained elsewhere.
Traditionally, pretrial discovery is not a public event. As the Supreme Court has noted with respect to the First Amendment right of access, “pretrial depositions and interrogatories are not public components of a civil trial. Such proceedings were not open to the public at common law, and, in general, they are conducted in private as a matter of modern practice.” Seattle Times Co. v. Rhinehart, 467 U.S. 20, 33, 104 S.Ct. 2199, 81 L.Ed.2d 17 (1984) (citation omitted). This was the case here. The majority relies on the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which provide that all discovery materials shall be filed with the court absent a contrary court order. See Fed. R.Civ.P. 5(d), 26(c). I agree that the federal system provides the public with a presumptive right of access to discovery materials. However, the general public has no real access to the information until it is publicly filed. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 5(d) advisory committee’s note to 1980 amendment (Filing requirement was retained because discovery materials “are sometimes of interest to those who have no access to them except by a requirement of filing, such as ... the public generally.”). If Stinson had obtained its information by browsing through public court files, I agree that the suit would have been based on public disclosure.
But the Provident memoranda were not produced in federal court, and had not been publicly filed when Stinson obtained them. When applying the term “public disclosure,” I would examine the actual circumstances of this case, not those that might have existed had the information been pro*1171duced in federal litigation. The relevant facts are those pertaining to the Leonard litigation, which was conducted in Florida state court. Although the meaning of “public disclosure” is a federal issue, I believe its application in a particular case must depend on the factual circumstances of the disclosure. In this case, the discovery was conducted in Florida state court. Florida state rules do not require responses to discovery requests to be filed with the court. See Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.350(d) (“Unless required by the court, a party shall not file any of the documents or things produced with the response.”). The Provident memoranda were not filed with the court upon their production and therefore did not become a matter of public record at that time. Consequently, I believe that the information was not publicly disclosed before it was filed with the court.
I believe public disclosure did not occur until Stinson filed the Provident memoran-da with the Florida court eleven days after they were produced by Provident. Section 3730(e)(4)(A) refers to public disclosure occurring at any time, regardless of whether the qui tarn relator knew of the information prior to discovery. Once such public disclosure has occurred, only an “original source” can bring an action based on that information. Thus, for purposes of § 3730(e)(4)(A), I believe public disclosure occurred when the Provident memoranda were filed with the court, even though they were filed by Stinson. As noted below, however, because Stinson made the public disclosure, I believe it qualifies as an original source.
Because I would look at the facts surrounding the disclosure, my analysis might be different if the disclosure had taken a different form. For example, if Stinson had received the Provident memoranda from a witness at a public trial, rather than during pretrial discovery, such a revelation would almost certainly constitute “public disclosure in a civil hearing.” However, in such a situation, Stinson might qualify as an “original source” if it was actually responsible for the disclosure of the documents, even though it did not disclose them itself. I would leave that question for another case.
I would focus on actual public disclosure, rather than the general potentiality for public access to civil litigation, and would hold that no public disclosure occurred when Stinson obtained the Provident mem-oranda through a discovery inquiry, just as if Stinson had obtained the same information through an independent investigation prior to the Leonard litigation. Non-public information, even when obtained during civil litigation, does not implicate concerns about “parasitism.” I believe Congress drew the line at the point of actual public disclosure because it felt that this rule would bring the most fraud to light without engendering unnecessary suits. The soundness of this policy should be measured by its effects over the entire span of cases. But the rule is also sound as applied in this case. It is virtually impossible that the Provident memoranda would have come to light but for Stinson’s efforts on behalf of its client. Stinson did not obtain this information by sifting through public records. The majority’s interpretation of “public disclosure” prevents a relator from acting upon most information garnered during litigation. In my view, civil discovery is a fertile source of information relating to government fraud, and this source should not be sealed off without Congressional intent to do so. In passing the Amendments, Congress clearly intended to increase the range of permissible relators.
B. CIVIL HEARING
Because I would hold that the production of the Provident memoranda during discovery did not constitute public disclosure, I would not reach the issue of whether civil discovery falls within the definition of a “civil hearing.” The question would still remain whether the eventual filing of the information with the Florida court constituted a disclosure in a “civil hearing.” Unfortunately, the record does not indicate precisely how the information was filed. Regardless, because I would find that Stin-son qualifies as an “original source” with respect to this disclosure, I would assume *1172without deciding that the disclosure took place in a civil hearing within the meaning of § 3730(e)(4)(A).
However, I question the district court’s determination that the term “civil hearing” and the other instances of public disclosures listed in § 3730(e)(4)(A) are merely “examples” of the general phrase “public disclosure.” Congress was specific in the types of disclosures enumerated in that subsection, and in fact added several terms in the August 11 amendments. The False Claims Act was generally intended to expand the scope of permissible qui tam actions. Thus, § 3730(e) contains a limited list of exceptions to the general jurisdictional statement in § 3730(b) that allows any person to file a qui tam action. As one court has noted,
The list of methods of “public disclosure” is specific and is not qualified by words that would indicate that they are only examples of the types of “public disclosure” to which the jurisdictional bar would apply. Congress could easily have used “such as” or “for example” to indicate that its list was not exhaustive. Because it did not, however, we will not give the statute a broader effect than that which appears in its plain language.
United States ex rel. Williams v. NEC Corp., 931 F.2d 1493, 1499-1500 (11th Cir.1991). See also 132 Cong. Ree. 29322 (1986) (“Before the relevant information regarding fraud is publicly disclosed through various government [sic?] hearings, reports and investigations which are specifically identified in' the legislation or through the news media, any person may file such an action_”) (Legislative History submitted by Rep. Berman) (emphasis added); United States ex rel. LeBlanc v. Raytheon Co., 913 F.2d 17, 20 (1st Cir.1990), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 111 S.Ct. 1312, 113 L.Ed.2d 246 (1991); Erickson ex rel. United States v. American Institute of Biological Sciences, 716 F.Supp. 908, 912-13 (E.D.Va.1989).
C. ORIGINAL SOURCE
An original source must have “direct and independent knowledge of the information on which the allegations are based.” § 3730(e)(4)(B). The majority holds that Stinson did not have “independent” knowledge of the Provident memoranda because it received the information via “public disclosure.” It also holds that Stinson did not have “direct” knowledge because it received the information through “intermediaries.” It finds that an original source must have been directly involved in the transactions at issue, raising the paradigm case of the “whistleblowing insider.”
I disagree with this interpretation. I believe the term “direct and independent” refers to information that is not learned by way of public disclosure. Cf. 1990 Implementation Hearing at 6 (“A party with knowledge of a fraud against the government ought to be able to maintain a qui tam action as long as he had some of the information in advance of the public disclosure.”) (Statement of Sen. Grassley). I would find that Stinson was an “original source” because it caused the public disclosure, and would not read the word “direct” as establishing a separate jurisdictional bar. I believe the original source exception was intended to encompass at least some people who possess information prior to its public disclosure, but who do not have firsthand knowledge of the facts upon which the information is based. The primary intended beneficiaries of the original source exception are those people who provide non-public information that is later publicly disclosed, regardless of whether they had some direct involvement with the underlying factual transactions.3
The majority’s interpretation may produce inconsistent results. Under § 3730(e)(4), any person may file suit in the absence of public disclosure. Consequently, regardless of how “original source” is interpreted, a person without a “direct" connection with the information can file *1173suit before there has been public disclosure. For example, a Stinson lawyer could file suit if he found the information on the street, or was given it surreptitiously by a Provident employee. Furthermore, under the majority’s interpretation of “public disclosure,” Stinson could have maintained this suit if the material had been produced under a protective order. Given that a person without “direct” knowledge may generally file suit, it is inconsistent to bar the same suit merely because that person publicly disclosed the information himself, or gave the information to an entity that later disclosed it. Under the majority’s interpretation, because public disclosure has occurred, Stinson’s “indirect” status now bars this suit. Similarly, a relator who obtains “second-hand” non-public information will be barred if he later voluntarily discloses the information in a Congressional hearing, or gives it to the news media. A relator’s “indirect” status, not relevant before public disclosure, becomes the critical factor once disclosure occurs.
I do not think Congress intended this result. I believe that this interpretation might discourage people from making information public — essentially repeating the problem caused by the 1943 legislation. If an otherwise eligible relator can be barred simply because he makes information public, he would be encouraged not to do so. By contrast, reading the words “direct and independent” as referring to the public disclosure protects all those who are responsible for disclosures, the primary reason for including an original source exception. If Congress had intended to bar all “second-hand” relators, it could have done so explicitly, without predicating the bar on public disclosure. I agree that Congress focused on the paradigm of the whistle-blowing insider, but the language of § 3730(e)(4) establishes that it did not intend to confine qui tam suits to those people. There is no apparent reason why Congress would bar “indirect” relators only after public disclosure has occurred.
Focusing on whether information was obtained from an “intermediary” is also overly restrictive. For example, under the majority’s holding, the Provident employee who conducted the telephone survey would qualify as an original source, but a coworker who learned the information from that employee would not. Similarly, someone who is tipped off by an “insider” would not qualify, even if the insider declines to come forward. Referring to the Dean case, the majority posits that a state government that uncovered information through an independent investigation would not be barred. Majority Op. at 1161. However, if that state received the Provident memoranda from the same “intermediaries” as did Stinson, it would also be barred under the majority’s interpretation. Much valuable information is obtained through “intermediaries” of some kind. All hearsay evidence fits this definition, regardless of its reliability. For example, many business records must be obtained from intermediaries, because the receiver does not have first-hand knowledge of the underlying facts. I believe Congress intended to encourage people to bring nonpublic information to light, regardless of how it is obtained. Eliminating information that has come through intermediaries would bar a large number of potential rela-tors.
The legislative history does not conclusively establish the meaning of the words “direct and independent knowledge,” but I believe it tends to contradict the majority’s view. The original source language is clearly evocative of the failed 1943 Senate bill. This bill would have permitted suits based on “sources original” to the relator, and was described as allowing suits where the information was known to the government, but had been obtained from the relator. See 89 Cong.Rec. 10845 (1943). In 1986, Congress saw the lack of an original source exception as a major flaw in the 1943 amendments. When the original source exception was added late in the legislative process, I believe it was designed primarily to protect people who publicly disclosed information themselves, just as the 1943 bill would have protected people who provided information to the government. I do not believe it was inserted to *1174bar recovery by “second-hand” sources only when public disclosure has occurred.
There are other specific references that support linking the original source exception to the occurrence of public disclosure. First, the legislative history considered by the House states that “[a] person is an original source if he had some of the information ... in advance of the false claims being publicly disclosed.” 132 Cong.Rec. 29322 (1986). Nowhere is a second “directness” bar mentioned. Second, § 3730(d)(1) provides the lowest level of recovery for those actions “based primarily on disclosures of specific information (other than information provided by the person bringing the action) relating to allegations or transactions in a ... civil ... hearing.” (emphasis added). Before the emphasized language was inserted, Senator Grassley stated that “[t]his limitation will affect those persons who have brought a qui tam action based almost entirely on information of which they did not have independent knowledge but had derived from a public source.” 132 Cong.Rec. 20536. This statement indicates that the “independent knowledge” in the original source exception refers to whether the knowledge was obtained independently of the public disclosure.
The emphasized language was inserted in the final amendment to make specific that people who are “original sources” with respect to only a small amount of information may nevertheless recover something. As Senator Grassley stated, “a 10-percent cap is placed on those ‘original sources’ who bring cases based on information already publicly disclosed where only an insignificant amount of that information stemmed from that original source.” 132 Cong.Rec. 28580 (1986). This statement indicates that an original source is the person from whom the publicly disclosed information stemmed, regardless of how the original source obtained the information. I find no support for the view that the word “direct” was intended to constitute a separate jurisdictional bar. Rather, intending to redress a flaw similar to that in the 1943 legislation, Congress wanted to protect those relators who publicly disclose information.4
In my view, the more difficult question is whether a relator must somehow be connected with the public disclosure to qualify as an original source. This situation encompasses relators who learn of information that is later publicly disclosed through sources unconnected to the relator before the relator files suit. Congress may have felt that once information has been publicly disclosed, it is unnecessary to reward all those who knew of the information beforehand. Under this interpretation, the original source exception would protect only those people who disclosed the information themselves, or who provided the information to an entity that later disclosed it. The exception would therefore address the problem engendered by the 1943 legislation, which barred those who had provided information to the government. See § 3730(d) (lowest level of recovery for actions based primarily on publicly disclosed information, “other than information provided by the person bringing the action ”) (emphasis added). But see 1990 Implementation Hearing at 6 (a party with knowledge of fraud ought to be able to maintain an action if he had some of the information in advance of the public disclosure) (Statement of Sen. Grassley); 132 Cong.Rec. 20536 (1986) (“[A] qui tam action based solely on public disclosures cannot be brought by an individual with no direct or independent knowledge of the information or who had not been an original source to the entity that disclosed the allegations.”) (Statement of Sen. Grassley) (repeated in id.) (emphasis added).
The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has held that “a plaintiff ... must have directly or indirectly been a source to the entity that publicly disclosed the allegations on which a suit is based.” United *1175States ex rel. Dick v. Long Island Lighting Co., 912 F.2d 13, 16 (2d Cir.1990). In Dick, the relators based their suit almost entirely on information that had been publicly disclosed in the news media and elsewhere, but apparently possessed some information prior to the public disclosure. The court utilized statutory construction and legislative history to reach its conclusion, but also noted:
Our interpretation ... is most likely to bring “wrongdoing to light” since, by barring those who come forward only after public disclosure ... it discourages persons with relevant information from remaining silent and encourages them to report such information at the earliest possible time.
Id. at 18 (quoting Senate Report at 14,1986 U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News 5279).
The court did not explain precisely to whom the individual is supposed to “report” the information. If the information must be reported to the government, and an unrelated entity later publicly discloses the same information, the relator would still be barred because he would not have been a source to the disclosing entity. Such a requirement might encourage people to report frauds to the news media rather than the government, or file premature suits — potentially inefficient results. It also raises the specter of “pre-emptive” public disclosures by potential defendants fearing imminent qui tam suits. The situation faced in Dick points out one problem with the 1986 amendments’ focus on publicly disclosed information, in contrast to the 1943 amendments’ focus on information possessed by the government.
However, I would not reach this issue. The only relevant public disclosure in this case occurred when Stinson filed the Provident memoranda with the Florida court. Because Stinson was itself the entity that disclosed the information, it should qualify as an original source. Had the documents been filed instead by Provident after they had been disclosed to Stinson, I might have faced the question of what connection, if any, is required between the disclosing entity and the relator.
The majority also holds that Stinson cannot qualify as an original source on the grounds that the Provident memoranda were not the sole source of information underlying this action. The first memorandum simply contained the statement “Left message — Same as us” beside Prudential’s name and the name of a Prudential vice-president. As Stinson notes, this annotation is meaningless without prior knowledge of the claims procedures followed by Provident. The record indicates that Stin-son was aware of possible improper practices by Provident prior to the Leonard litigation. See United States ex rel. Stinson, Lyons et. al. v. Provident Life & Accident Ins. Co., 721 F.Supp. 1247, 1257-58 (S.D.Fla.1989) (discussing sources of information relating to Provident). Thus, Stin-son argues that it is an original source of critical information regardless of whether it would qualify as an original source of the Provident memoranda.
One difficulty with this argument is that it is not clear from the record whether the other information about Provident’s practices was also publicly disclosed in the Leonard litigation. If such disclosure occurred I would reach the question of whether it occurred in a “civil hearing,” and potentially the issue of the requisite connection between the relator and the disclosing entity. The district court in Provident held that Stinson was an original source of the information regarding Provident because “even if there was no ‘public disclosure’ through the Leonard litigation, Stinson would still have learned of the information ... through its relationship with Leonard.” Id. at 1258. Thus, the court assumed that no particular connection was required between Stinson and the public disclosure, as long as Stinson had the information before it was disclosed. Because I would hold that Stinson is an original source with respect to the Provident memo-randa, I would not address these issues here.
The majority’s holding requires a court to make subtle distinctions between “substantive” and “background” information. Regardless, I agree that a qui tam suit is *1176not barred merely because it is based on some information that was publicly disclosed within the meaning of § 3730(e)(4)(A), and the relator does not have direct and independent knowledge of that information. Section 3730(d) provides the lowest level of recovery for relators whose actions are based primarily on public disclosures. The legislative history of this subsection is clear that “a 10-percent cap is placed on those ‘original sources’ who bring cases based on information already publicly disclosed where only an insignificant amount of that information stemmed from that original source.” 132 Cong Rec. 28580 (1986) (statement of Sen. Grassley). Thus, a relator who contributes some original information can maintain a suit despite the fact that most information underlying the suit was publicly disclosed and the relator does not have direct and independent knowledge of that information. But when the amount of original information is small, the recovery is reduced.5
III. CONCLUSION
Section 3730(e)(4) applies only when information has been publicly disclosed through an enumerated method prior to the filing of a qui tarn suit based on that information. Once such public disclosure has occurred, only an “original source” may maintain an action. Public disclosure does not occur until information is actually disclosed to the public. At a minimum, the person who has publicly disclosed the information should qualify as an original source. Because the Provident memoranda were publicly disclosed only when Stinson filed them with the Florida court, and Stinson qualifies as an original source with respect to this disclosure, I would find that this suit is not barred by § 3730(e)(4).

. I agree that § 3730(e)(4) does not apply only to governmental disclosures. Although there is some indication that Congress may have contemplated such a limitation, the legislative history is not convincing enough to overcome the plain language of the statute. However, one problem with including non-governmental disclosures within § 3730(e)(4)(A) is the requirement in § 3730(e)(4)(B) that an “original source” must have "voluntarily provided the information to the Government before filing an action ... which is based on the information." There is no indication that Stinson disclosed any information relating to Prudential before filing suit. But § 3730(b)(2) requires a relator to divulge its information to the government after filing suit. It would be redundant to include an additional pre-filing disclosure requirement in cases involving publicly disclosed information. In these cases, a relator would have to disclose the information twice — once before filing and once after. Consequently, the "voluntary disclosure" language might be read as assuming that all public disclosures are made by the government. Under this interpretation, the language would protect people who willingly provided information to the government that the government later disclosed. Those who provided the information involuntarily, as by subpoena, would not be protected. See 132 Cong. Rec. 20536 (1986) (statement of Sen. Grassley), supra at 1166. I believe the "voluntary disclosure" language was designed for that purpose, but that it is irrelevant in the case of nongovernmental disclosures. Nevertheless, the purpose behind the language — protecting those who provide information that is later disclosed — supports the interpretation of the “original source” exception set forth below.
I also would not place any separate emphasis on the words “based upon” in § 3730(e)(4)(A). Under a literal reading, it would seem that an action involving original information which later was publicly disclosed would not be “based upon" any public disclosure, and could proceed regardless of whether the relator qualifies as an "original source.” See United States ex rel. La-Valley v. First Nat'l Bank, 707 F.Supp. 1351, 1366-67 (D.Mass.1988). The problem with this interpretation is that it renders the original source exception redundant. All people who qualify as original sources would be protected by the "based upon public disclosure" language, because an original source must have "direct and independent knowledge" of the information. I believe subsection (e)(4)(A) applies to any enumerated public disclosure occurring pri- or to the filing of a qui tarn action based in some part upon that information, regardless of whether the relator possessed the information before its disclosure. Only an “original source" can maintain a suit in these instances.

. The public disclosure language may have also narrowed the scope of the jurisdictional bar in another way. Under the 1943 legislation, government employees who discovered fraud while on the job would be barred, because the information was "known to the government.” Under the 1986 amendments, however, it appears that such employees may file suit when there has been no public disclosure. See United States ex rel. Williams v. NEC Corp., 931 F.2d 1493 (11th Cir.1991); United States ex rel. Ha-good v. Sonoma County Water Agency, 929 F.2d 1416 (9th Cir.1991); United States ex rel. Givter v. Smith, 760 F.Supp. 72 (E.D.Pa.1991); Erickson ex rel. United States v. American Institute of Biological Sciences, 716 F.Supp. 908 (E.D.Va.1989). It is possible that Congress intended this result. See 132 Cong.Rec. H6483 (daily ed. Sept. 9, 1986) (statement of Rep. Bedell), supra at 1165. But it is also possible that the omission of a government employee exception was an oversight.

. I also have some concerns about the majority's application of the word "independent." If I were to find that public disclosure occurred when the Provident memoranda were produced during discovery, 1 believe Stinson might be considered an "original source” because it was the party responsible for causing the disclosure.

. The majority emphasizes the district court decision in United States v. Rockwell Int’l Corp., 730 F.Supp 1031, 1035-36 (D.Colo.1990), where the court held that one of two relators was not an original source because it did not possess first-hand knowledge of factual transactions. I disagree with this decision.

. I also note that the statute does not distinguish among different people who may qualify as original sources. It is possible that more than one person can be an original source with respect to certain publicly disclosed information, just as more than one person might be eligible to file an action based on undisclosed information. See § 3730(e)(4)(A) (action can be brought if person is "an original source") (emphasis added). In this case, for example, Mr. Leonard might also qualify as an original source, as might the Provident employee who first produced the memoranda. Barring an otherwise eligible relator merely because there is someone else with a more direct connection to the information would invite challenges by defendants listing other eligible sources who may never come forward. However, once an eligible relator has brought an action, no other private party can bring an action based on the same information. See § 3730(b)(5). This situation creates a potential "race to the courthouse" among eligible relators, but such a race may also spur the prompt reporting of fraud.