United States Ex Rel. Doe v. Staples, Inc.
2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 40903
| D.D.C. | 2013Background
- Relator filed a qui tam action under the FCA against Staples, OfficeMax, Target, and IFB, initially sealing the filing on May 15, 2008.
- Relator alleges defendants purchased low-cost pencils manufactured in China and misrepresented their country of origin to U.S. Customs to evade tariffs and duties.
- The Amended Complaint asserts four counts: antidumping duties (count I), mislabeling country of origin (count II), liquidated damages (count III, later dismissed), and GSP-related duties (count IV).
- Relator relies on publicly available data (PIERS) to link shipments to false origin statements; he also cites ITC reports describing pencil characteristics indicative of Chinese origin.
- The court addresses defendants’ Rule 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) challenges and concludes the public disclosure bar applies and the relator is not an original source, warranting dismissal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the claims are barred by public disclosure | Relator argues information was not publicly disclosed to trigger bar. | Defendants contend PIERS data and ITC reports publicized the allegations. | Yes; public disclosure bar applies. |
| Whether relator is an original source | Relator claims direct, independent knowledge and early government disclosure. | Relator lacks direct, independent knowledge; his information derives from public disclosures and private investigators. | No; original source requirement not satisfied. |
| Whether the court has subject-matter jurisdiction under the FCA | Relator asserts jurisdiction notwithstanding public disclosures. | Public disclosure bar defeats jurisdiction absent original source. | Lacks subject-matter jurisdiction; dismissal granted. |
Key Cases Cited
- Springfield Terminal Ry. Co. v. United States ex rel. Springfield Terminal Ry. Co., 14 F.3d 645 (D.C. Cir. 1994) (two-part public disclosure/original source analysis for FCA qui tam actions)
- United States ex rel. Settlemire v. District of Columbia, 198 F.3d 913 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (public disclosure scope and bar)
- Findley v. FPC-Boron Employees' Club, 105 F.3d 675 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (definition of original source; direct/independent knowledge)
- United States ex rel. Hockett v. Columbia/HCA Healthcare Corp., 498 F. Supp. 2d 25 (D.D.C. 2007) (original source standard; hearsay/secondhand knowledge insufficient)
- United States ex rel. Green v. Serv. Contract Educ. & Training Trust Fund, 843 F. Supp. 2d 20 (D.D.C. 2012) (broad interpretation of public disclosures including online sources)
- Kalmanovitz Charitable Found. v. Alcohol Found., 186 F. Supp. 2d 458 (S.D.N.Y. 2002) (treats trade publications as public-disclosure sources)