US Ex Rel. Stephen Yagman v. James Mitchell, 711 F. App'x 422

Stephen Yagman filed a qui tam False Claims Act suit against psychologists James Mitchell and John Jessen alleging fraud related to their roles in the CIA interrogation/detention program.
The district court dismissed the complaint under the FCA public-disclosure bar, which removes jurisdiction where alleged fraud was publicly disclosed unless the relator is an original source or the Attorney General intervenes.
Public sources (notably the Senate Select Committee Study and the CIA’s official response) set out detailed allegations about the psychologists’ roles, claimed expertise, and the effectiveness and study of the interrogation techniques.
The public materials specifically addressed lack of empirical controls and the impracticality of an effective control group for assessing technique effectiveness.
Yagman’s complaint largely incorporated and relied on those public reports and news articles and added no independent factual detail beyond what those sources disclosed.
Yagman did not allege he had provided the government with the complained-of information prior to filing, so he did not qualify as an "original source."

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the public-disclosure bar forecloses the suit	Yagman argued his allegations were novel and not covered by public disclosures	Defendants argued the same allegations/transactions were already publicly disclosed in government reports and media	The court held the public-disclosure bar applied because public materials disclosed substantially the same allegations/transactions
Whether publicly disclosed materials permitted an inference of fraud	Yagman contended his pleading added necessary inference of fraudulent conduct	Defendants pointed to detailed public reports that already supplied facts from which fraud could be inferred	The court held the public sources provided sufficient facts to infer the alleged fraud; "transactions" has broad meaning
Whether Yagman was an "original source"	Yagman implicitly claimed independent knowledge supporting his status as original source	Defendants argued he did not have independent, materially additive knowledge nor did he provide it to the government before filing	The court held Yagman failed to allege he voluntarily provided the information to the government pre-filing and thus is not an original source
Whether dismissal was appropriate without oral argument	N/A	Defendants supported decision on the briefs	The panel decided the case was suitable for decision without oral argument and affirmed dismissal

Schindler Elev. Corp. v. United States ex rel. Kirk, 563 U.S. 401 (2011) ("transactions" in the public-disclosure bar has a broad meaning)
United States ex rel. Mateski v. Raytheon Corp., 816 F.3d 565 (9th Cir. 2016) (public disclosures that supply facts from which fraud can be inferred satisfy the public-disclosure bar)