United States ex rel. John Doe v. Staples, Inc.
413 U.S. App. D.C. 208
| D.C. Cir. | 2014Background
- Relator (John Doe) filed a qui tam False Claims Act suit alleging Staples, OfficeMax, Target, and Industries for the Blind imported pencils made in China but declared non‑Chinese origins to U.S. Customs to avoid antidumping duties.
- Relator’s allegations rested on: (1) PIERS manifest data showing importers’ declared country of origin, and (2) his claim that physical characteristics (e.g., off‑center leads, loose ferrules, poor finish) identify Chinese‑made pencils.
- The government declined to intervene; defendants moved to dismiss under the FCA’s public disclosure bar and for failure to state a claim.
- The district court held the suit was barred because the misrepresentations (PIERS/Customs data) and the pencils’ distinguishing physical features were already publicly disclosed (ITC reports), and Relator was not shown to be an original source.
- Relator appealed the jurisdictional dismissal; the D.C. Circuit reviewed the dismissal de novo and affirmed for lack of subject‑matter jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the FCA public disclosure bar strips jurisdiction where alleged misrepresentations and the true facts underlying fraud are publicly disclosed | Doe: ITC reports and manifest data were insufficient to show pencils were made in China; his private investigation added necessary independent information | Defs: PIERS (publicly accessible manifest data) disclosed misrepresentations; ITC reports disclosed physical characteristics of Chinese pencils, so both elements were public | Court: Bar applies — both elements (declarations to Customs and characteristics linking pencils to China) were publicly disclosed; jurisdiction dismissed |
| Whether ITC reports qualify as public "administrative reports" that disclose distinguishing characteristics of Chinese pencils | Doe: Reports do not identify defendants’ pencils as Chinese; physical inspection required | Defs: ITC reports describe telltale features (e.g., poor finish, off‑center lead, loose ferrules) sufficient to alert investigators | Court: ITC reports disclose features that, combined with PIERS data, were enough to put government on notice; treated as administrative reports |
| Whether Relator’s independent investigation makes him an original source | Doe: His supplier investigation provided independent, critical information | Defs: Relator failed to plead original‑source status below and adduces no timely jurisdictional facts | Court: Doe forfeited original‑source argument by not raising it in district court; cannot invoke on appeal |
| Whether the court should reach merits of FCA claim after jurisdictional bar | Doe: N/A (urged merits indirectly) | Defs: Jurisdictional bar precludes adjudication on merits | Court: Declined to reach merits; dismissed for lack of subject‑matter jurisdiction |
Key Cases Cited
- Graham County Soil & Water Conservation District v. United States ex rel. Wilson, 559 U.S. 280 (limits on qui tam suits under the public disclosure bar)
- Springfield Terminal Ry. v. Quinn, 14 F.3d 645 (D.C. Cir. 1994) (public disclosure bar requires public disclosure of both the false statement and the true facts)
- Schindler Elevator Corp. v. United States ex rel. Kirk, 131 S. Ct. 1885 (2011) (report has broad ordinary meaning under the FCA)
- Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83 (1998) (party invoking federal jurisdiction bears the burden to establish it)
- United States ex rel. Settlemire v. District of Columbia, 198 F.3d 913 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (original‑source exception must be timely pled below)