Legal Opinion
United States ex rel. Burch v. Piqua Engineering, Inc.
District Court, S.D. Ohio
Decided February 2, 1993No. Civ. A. No. C-1-90-745PublishedCited by 11 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO SUPPRESS CHANGES TO QUI TAM PLAINTIFFS’ THREE DEPOSITION TRANSCRIPTS
SHERMAN, United States Magistrate Judge.
On Friday, January 8, 1993 the Court heard oral argument on defendant’s motion “to suppress changes to [plaintiffs’ three] deposition transcripts” (doc. 40). See also docs. 51 (plaintiffs’ memorandum in opposition), 53 (defendant’s reply). This opinion memorializes the Court’s oral decision rendered the following Monday, January 11, 1993.
I
This qui tam action was brought under the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. § 3729, et…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Ikerd v. LapworthCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1970
- Lugtig v. ThomasDistrict Court, N.D. Illinois · 1981
- Sanford v. CBS, INC.District Court, N.D. Illinois · 1984
- Spar Gas, Inc. v. Ap Propane, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1992
- Baker v. Ace Advertisers' Service, Inc.District Court, S.D. New York · 1992
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- EBC, Inc. v. Clark Building System, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2010
- Tingley Systems, Inc. v. CSC Consulting, Inc.District Court, D. Massachusetts · 2001
- Holland v. Cedar Creek Mining, Inc.District Court, S.D. West Virginia · 2001
- Foutz v. Town of VintonDistrict Court, W.D. Virginia · 2002
- Summerhouse v. HCA Health ServicesDistrict Court, D. Kansas · 2003
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.