June 2, 2023
Where a qui tam suit brought under the False Claims Act was dismissed with prejudice under Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the dismissal should be affirmed because the relators repeatedly failed to comply with applicable protective orders.
“Antoni Nargol and David Langton (collectively, ‘Relators’) brought this qui tam suit against DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc., DePuy, Inc., and Johnson & Johnson Services, Inc. (collectively, ‘DePuy’) under the False Claims Act (‘FCA’), 31 U.S.C. §3729, alleging a fraudulent scheme involving hip replacement devices sold by DePuy. The district court dismissed with prejudice Relators’ case under Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for repeatedly failing to comply with applicable protective orders. Relators appeal the dismissal, arguing that the district court misinterpreted the protective orders and erred in finding that the operative complaint included information subject to one of those protective orders. For the reasons that follow, we affirm the decision of the district court and find that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the suit based on Relators’ repeated violations of protective orders. …
“Relators brought this qui tam suit against DePuy under the FCA in May 2012. The complaint centered on DePuy’s metal-on-metal hip-replacement device, marketed under DePuy’s ‘Pinnacle’ product line. … A first amended complaint was filed under seal in November...
Welcome to Reality Check, NewsGuard’s nonpartisan newsletter that tracks the false claims and conspiracy theories that shape our world — and who’s behind them. Please support us by becoming a premi...