{"id":135,"date":"2019-01-04T17:07:27","date_gmt":"2019-01-04T21:07:27","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/lifescienceslaw\/?p=135"},"modified":"2019-01-04T17:07:27","modified_gmt":"2019-01-04T21:07:27","slug":"doj-implements-2018-granston-memo-on-false-claims-act","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/lifescienceslaw\/2019\/01\/04\/doj-implements-2018-granston-memo-on-false-claims-act\/","title":{"rendered":"DOJ Implements 2018 Granston Memo on False Claims Act"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>In early 2018, the U.S. Department of Justice\u00a0<a title=\"DOJ Announces New False Claims Act Guidance on Qui Tam Complaints\" href=\"https:\/\/www.duanemorris.com\/alerts\/doj_announces_new_false_claims_act_guidance_qui_tam_complaints_0118.html\">announced a new policy<\/a>\u00a0encouraging prosecutors handling False Claims Act (FCA) cases to seek dismissal of\u00a0<i>qui tam<\/i>\u00a0complaints that threaten the government\u2019s interests. However, it was unclear how and to what extent prosecutors would carry out that directive. Now a year later, federal prosecutors appear to be embracing the new policy\u2014and it is already having an effect on one case involving a drug manufacturer.<\/p>\n<p>The\u00a0<a title=\"January 2018 Granston memorandum\" href=\"https:\/\/www.fcadefenselawblog.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/561\/2018\/01\/Memo-for-Evaluating-Dismissal-Pursuant-to-31-U-S.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">January 2018\u00a0<i>Granston<\/i>\u00a0memorandum<\/a>\u00a0outlined the Department\u2019s new approach to handling FCA prosecutions in \u201cin light of the government\u2019s limited resources.\u201d Under the new policy, prosecutors are encouraged to move to dismiss\u00a0<i>qui tam<\/i>\u00a0claims as a way to \u201cadvance the government\u2019s interests, preserve limited resources, and avoid adverse precedent.\u201d This marked a departure from the Department\u2019s previous policy of rarely exercising its statutory authority to dismiss such claims. To guide prosecutors, the memorandum offered a nonexhaustive list of factors as to when a motion to dismiss a\u00a0<i>qui tam\u00a0<\/i>claim is proper. Those factors include: (1) \u201ccurbing meritless\u00a0<i>qui tams<\/i>\u201d; (2) \u201cpreventing parasitic or opportunistic\u00a0<i>qui tam\u00a0<\/i>actions\u201d; (3) \u201cpreventing interference with agency policies and programs\u201d; (4) \u201ccontrolling litigation brought on behalf of the United States\u201d; (5) \u201csafeguarding classified information and national security interests\u201d; (6) \u201cpreserving government resources\u201d; and (7) \u201caddressing egregious procedural errors.\u201d Overall, the memorandum instructed prosecutors to seek dismissal when the litigation does not serve the government\u2019s interests.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/www.duanemorris.com\/alerts\/doj_grants_grantson_memo_motions_dismiss_filed_eleven_false_claims_0119.html\">Read the full <em>Alert<\/em> on the Duane Morris LLP website<\/a>.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>In early 2018, the U.S. Department of Justice\u00a0announced a new policy\u00a0encouraging prosecutors handling False Claims Act (FCA) cases to seek dismissal of\u00a0qui tam\u00a0complaints that threaten the government\u2019s interests. However, it was unclear how and to what extent prosecutors would carry out that directive. Now a year later, federal prosecutors appear to be embracing the new &hellip; <\/p>\n<p class=\"link-more\"><a href=\"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/lifescienceslaw\/2019\/01\/04\/doj-implements-2018-granston-memo-on-false-claims-act\/\" class=\"more-link\">Continue reading<span class=\"screen-reader-text\"> &#8220;DOJ Implements 2018 Granston Memo on False Claims Act&#8221;<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":6,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[2],"tags":[339,338,341,340,209,335,50,337,336],"ppma_author":[521],"class_list":["post-135","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-general","tag-department-of-justice","tag-doj","tag-false-claims-act","tag-fca","tag-frederick-ball","tag-granston-memo","tag-pharma","tag-qui-tam","tag-rachel-good"],"authors":[{"term_id":521,"user_id":6,"is_guest":0,"slug":"duanemorris3","display_name":"Duane Morris","avatar_url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/843ff6e7a8fe5fc92109b47a45f34b6cf0ea499e6e788db23456c838b0ae6747?s=96&d=blank&r=g","author_category":"1","last_name":"Sullivan","first_name":"Margaret","job_title":"","user_url":"http:\/\/www.duanemorris.com","description":"<a href=\"http:\/\/www.duanemorris.com\">Visit the Duane Morris website.<\/a>"}],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/lifescienceslaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/135","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/lifescienceslaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/lifescienceslaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/lifescienceslaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/6"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/lifescienceslaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=135"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/lifescienceslaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/135\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/lifescienceslaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=135"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/lifescienceslaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=135"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/lifescienceslaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=135"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/lifescienceslaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/ppma_author?post=135"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}