Legal Opinion

Miller v. Holzmann

District Court, District of Columbia

Decided February 2, 2007No. CA No. 95-01231 (RCL/JMF)PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

ORDER

FACCIOLA, United States Magistrate Judge.

In accordance with the accompanying Memorandum Opinion, it is, hereby,

*21ORDERED that Defendants’ Emergency Motion to Compel and for Expenses and Attorneys’ Fees [#367] is DENIED as to documents 34, 35, 40 and 41.

SO ORDERED.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Introduction

On June 30, 1995, the same day that he filed this qui tam action, Richard F. Miller submitted a confidential disclosure statement to the government, thereby beginning the fulfillment of the responsibility imposed upon him by 31 U.S.C. § 3730(b)(2),1 which requires the relator in a qui tam action to…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Fisher v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
  2. United States v. American Telephone & Telegraph Co.Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1980
  3. Swidler & Berlin v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1998
  4. United States v. Martin SchwimmerCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1989
  5. United States ex rel. Purcell v. MWI Corp.District Court, District of Columbia · 2002

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Jackson Hospital Corporation v. National Labor Relations BoardDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2009
  2. Trustees of the Electrical Workers Local No. 26 Pension Trust Fund v. Trust Fund Advisors, Inc.District Court, District of Columbia · 2010
  3. United States Ex Rel. Landis v. Tailwind Sports Corp.District Court, District of Columbia · 2014
  4. Schroeder v. Hutchinson Regional Medical CenterDistrict Court, D. Kansas · 2023

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API