USA, ex rel Brady Folliard v. Government Acquisitions
412 U.S. App. D.C. 189
D.C. Cir.2014Background
- Govplace, a Gov't contractors vendor, purchased HP products mainly through Ingram Micro and relied on Ingram’s COO certifications under the TAA.
- Folliard, a qui tam relator, alleges Govplace sold non-designated-country COO HP products in violation of the TAA and made false FCA claims.
- District Court granted Govplace summary judgment on most sales and denied some Rule 56(d) discovery requests.
- The court later allowed focused discovery on four HP products from Ingram Micro and held Govplace’s reliance on Ingram’s certifications may preclude FCA knowledge.
- On appeal, the D.C. Circuit affirms, concluding the district court did not abuse discovery discretion and Govplace reasonably relied on Ingram Micro’s COO certifications.
- Resolution rests on whether Govplace’s reliance constitutes non-knowledge or reckless disregard under the FCA.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rule 56(d) discovery was properly denied | Folliard argues more discovery was needed to challenge COO reliance. | Govplace contends discovery was properly limited to alleged specific sales and exemptions. | No abuse; discovery properly limited and rulings affirmed |
| Whether Govplace reasonably relied on Ingram Micro’s COO certifications | Folliard contends reliance was unreasonable, showing reckless disregard. | Govplace reasonably relied on Ingram Micro’s certifications and GSA’s approval. | Reasonable reliance; no evidence of recklessness |
| Whether discovery denial forecloses summary judgment on certain sales | Folliard argues denial prevented a full factual contest on FirstSource/open market/New Tech sales. | Govplace shows exemptions and lack of COO representations render discovery unnecessary. | No error; summary judgment proper for those sales |
| Whether Govplace’s alleged misrepresentations were 'knowingly' false under FCA | Folliard claims Govplace knowingly submitted false claims. | Govplace acted with reasonable reliance and did not knowingly submit false claims. | No knowledge or recklessness shown; FCA not violated |
Key Cases Cited
- Convertino v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, 684 F.3d 93 (D.C. Cir. 2012) (standard for Rule 56(d) discovery requests)
- Ward v. United States, 471 F.2d 667 (3d Cir. 1973) (discovery appropriate when facts are in moving party’s possession)
- Byrd v. U.S. EPA, 174 F.3d 239 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (need to show why nonmovant cannot produce facts)
- Bettis v. Odebrecht Contractors of Cal., Inc., 393 F.3d 1321 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (standard for summary judgment and discovery standards)
- Krizek v. United States, 111 F.3d 934 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (reckless disregard standard under FCA)
- Berkeley v. Home Ins. Co., 68 F.3d 1409 (D.C. Cir. 1995) (court’s approach to evaluating Rule 56(d) diligence)