THIS CASEBOOK contains a selection of U. S. Court of Appeals decisions that analyze and discuss issues surrounding qui tam claims. Volume 1 of the casebook covers the District of Columbia Circuit and the First through the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.

* * *

When a relator brings a qui tam action, he must serve the government with a copy of the complaint and "written disclosure of substantially all material evidence and information" he possesses. 31 U.S.C. § 3730(b)(2). The complaint is filed under seal for at least sixty days (the government may seek extensions for good cause), and it may not be served on the defendant until the court so orders. Id. § 3730(b)(2), (3). Before the complaint is unsealed, the government has two options. It may "intervene and proceed with the action" itself, in which case it has "the primary responsibility for prosecuting" it, although the relator has "the right to continue as a party to the action"; or the government may notify the court that it declines to "take over the action," in which case the relator "shall have the right to conduct the action." Id. § 3730(b)(2), (b)(4), (c)(1).

Even if the government initially declines to intervene, the court "may nevertheless permit the [g]overnment to intervene at a later date upon a showing of good cause." Id. § 3730(c)(3). If the government conducts the action, the relator may receive up to twenty-five percent of any proceeds recovered, plus reasonable expenses, attorneys' fees, and costs. Id. § 3730(d)(1). If the relator conducts the action, his potential maximum recovery increases to thirty percent. Id. § 3730(d)(2).

The qui tam provision is "designed to set up incentives to supplement government enforcement" of the FCA. United States ex rel. Springfield Terminal Ry. Co. v. Quinn, 14 F.3d 645, 649 (D.C. Cir. 1994). The Supreme Court has explained that the "for the person and for the United States [g]overnment" language in the statute "gives the relator himself an interest in the lawsuit, and not merely the right to retain a fee out of the recovery." Vt. Agency of Nat. Res. v. United States ex rel. Stevens, 529 U.S. 765, 772, 120 S.Ct. 1858, 146 L.Ed.2d 836 (2000). The statute thus "entitles the relator to a hearing before the [g]overnment's voluntary dismissal of the suit" when the relator and the government disagree about whether, or when, to pursue the FCA action. Id. (citing 31 U.S.C. § 3730(c)(2)(A)).

Borzilleri v. Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals, 24 F. 4th 32 (1st Cir. 2022)