Last month, in U.S. ex rel. Randy Jacobs v. Advanced Dermatology & Skin Cancer Specialists P.C., a judge on the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California reached what should seem like an unremarkable conclusion — that the Federal Rules’ privilege log requirement applies to False Claims Act (FCA) relators every bit as much as defendants. But as the defense bar knows, relators do not always take that as a given in declined cases, and often demand defendants show that disclosure might be warranted before agreeing to even produce a log. The Jacobs court unequivocally rejected that approach, making clear that the horse must always come before the cart — that is, the relator must always provide a privilege log before any assessment is made of the underlying privilege’s validity.
The dispute in Jacobs revolved around the relator's "blanket refusal to comply" with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b) by "withholding various categories of documents" without producing a privilege log. Specifically, the defendants had requested in discovery "documents exchanged between Relator and third-party witnesses Relator relied on to draft his complaint and filed declarations … in opposing the motion to dismiss," as well as documents exchanged between the relator and the government, "including Relator's written disclosure statement under 31 U.S.C. § 3730(b)(2)." The relator objected to these discovery requests and stated he would not provide a privilege log for any of the...
The authority has also cautioned all beauty clinics, wellness centers, and service providers in India using CoolSculpting machines to strictly comply with these norms. The Central Consumer Protect...