Filed March 2, 2016
In BioScrip, the defendant received a “civil investigative demand” or “CID” after a qui tam complaint was filed against it that—by statute—informed “BioScrip of ‘the nature of the conduct constituting the alleged violation of a false claims law which is under investigation, and the applicable provision of the law alleged to be violated.’” BioScrip, 95 F. Supp. 3d at 721, 729 (quoting 31 U.S.C. § 3733). Thus, the receipt of a CID necessarily informed the defendant that it was subject to claims for alleged legal violations.
Filed July 3, 2014
Remarkably, the government objects that the request is “not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” Obviously, if the government issued subpoenas, civil investigative demands, and other discovery requests, it certified its compliance with Rule 11, 31 U.S.C. § 3733, and other governing provisions that those requests did in fact seek documents reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Regardless, the request is limited to investigative requests issued in connection with “this case or the investigation,” which is itself defined as limited to “matters RELATING TO the allegations of the relator or the United States in this litigation.”
Filed July 18, 2013
The DOJ, unlike Lead Plaintiffs, is a governmental agency permitted pre-filing discovery. Pursuant to 31 U.S.C. §3733, the DOJ may, “before commencing a civil [false claims] proceeding . . . [serve] a civil investigative demand” upon any person who “may be in possession, custody, or control of any documentary material or information relevant to a false claims law.” Indeed, the DOJ can serve investigative subpoenas seeking the production of documents and correspondence, written interrogatories, or oral testimony even “before commencing a civil [false claims] proceeding.”