Toolkit · Litigation
The False Claims Act and Relator Toolkit
31 U.S.C. § 3729
- Type
- Toolkit
- Jurisdiction
- National
- Date
- 2026-02-25
- Topic
- Litigation
This toolkit supplies the working documents a False Claims Act matter requires. It opens with a case evaluation worksheet and the document handling rules that determine more outcomes than any legal argument. It provides a public disclosure search log with original source analysis, a disclosure statement outline built to earn credibility with the government, and a complaint elements checklist keyed to the particularity requirement. Relator materials include a seal compliance card, a government interview preparation sheet, a retaliation log, an unsealing plan, and a share contribution memorandum documenting the work that sets the percentage. Defense materials include a response plan, a materiality evidence worksheet, and a compliance program audit. Additional tools cover settlement release review and tax planning. A routing table points to the other UpLaw resources each situation requires.
The False Claims Act and Relator Toolkit
Litigation > False Claims and Qui Tam | Published 25 February 2026 - Updated 8 August 2026 | UpLaw - uplaw.us
Qui tam cases are decided by preparation. These are the documents.
Tool 1 — Case evaluation worksheet
| Question | Finding | Strength |
|---|---|---|
| Is federal money involved? | ☐ | |
| Which provision of 31 U.S.C. § 3729 applies? | ☐ | |
| Is the falsity factual or legal? | ☐ | |
| If legal, what is the certification and what requirement was violated? | ☐ | |
| Why is the requirement material — what does the government do when it learns of noncompliance? | ☐ | |
| What did the defendant subjectively believe? | ☐ | |
| Approximate number of claims | ☐ | |
| Approximate amount per claim | ☐ | |
| Estimated damages and penalty exposure | ☐ | |
| Can specific claims be identified? | ☐ | |
| Which systems hold the proof, and who are the custodians? | ☐ | |
| Witnesses and what each would confirm | ☐ | |
| Is the relator's knowledge independent and inside? | ☐ | |
| Any public disclosure of these allegations? | ☐ | |
| Any known prior filer? | ☐ | |
| Limitations analysis under 31 U.S.C. § 3731 | ☐ | |
| Is the defendant solvent and a "person"? | ☐ | |
| Related state claims under 31 U.S.C. § 3732? | ☐ | |
| Can the relator sustain three to six years? | ☐ |
☐ ⭐ Objective falsity plus high claim volume plus documentary proof is the profile of a strong case. ☐ ⚠ The most common weakness: a relator certain something is wrong who cannot say which claims were false or why the requirement mattered to payment. ☐ Materiality is governed by Universal Health Services v. United States ex rel. Escobar; scienter by United States ex rel. Schutte v. SuperValu Inc..
Tool 2 — Document handling rules
⭐ Print this and give it to the client on the first call. It prevents more damage than any other page in this toolkit.
DO ☐ Write down what you remember, from home, on your own device. ☐ Note which system holds the evidence, which report shows it, and who the custodian is. ☐ Keep documents you already lawfully possess in the ordinary course of your job. ☐ Preserve your own performance record — reviews, commendations, metrics. ☐ Log every change in how you are treated at work, with dates and witnesses. ☐ Stop participating in the conduct, and document that you stopped.
DO NOT ☐ ⚠ Take documents you are not entitled to have. ☐ ⚠ Take privileged material. ☐ ⚠ Take protected patient information beyond what is strictly necessary. ☐ ⚠ Download databases, mass-forward email, or copy shared drives. ☐ ⚠ Record conversations without confirming your state's law. ☐ ⚠ Investigate on your own once a case is filed. ☐ ⚠ Discuss any of this on employer systems.
WHY: Wholesale removal produces counterclaims, criminal exposure, sanctions, and dismissal. ⭐ Describe rather than remove — the government can compel production through a civil investigative demand under 31 U.S.C. § 3733, and you cannot.
Tool 3 — Public disclosure search log
| Source searched | Date searched | Anything found? | Citation | Substantially same allegations? |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Federal inspector general reports | ☐ | ☐ | ||
| Agency audit reports | ☐ | ☐ | ||
| Congressional hearings and reports | ☐ | ☐ | ||
| Government Accountability Office reports | ☐ | ☐ | ||
| Prior settlements and press releases | ☐ | ☐ | ||
| Court filings in related actions | ☐ | ☐ | ||
| News media and trade press | ☐ | ☐ | ||
| Public payment or transparency databases | ☐ | ☐ | ||
| Corporate disclosures and filings | ☐ | ☐ | ||
| Academic and industry studies | ☐ | ☐ |
If a disclosure exists — original source analysis:
☐ Did the relator voluntarily disclose to the government before filing? Date: ______ ☐ Is the relator's knowledge independent of the public disclosure? How: ______ ☐ Does it materially add to what was publicly disclosed? Specifically: ______ ☐ ⭐ "Materially adds" is the operative phrase. Generic industry reporting rarely defeats a relator with specific internal facts — but the analysis must be documented before filing, not improvised in response to a motion. ☐ Apply Graham County Soil & Water Conservation District v. United States ex rel. Wilson on which reports trigger the bar and Rockwell International Corp. v. United States on the required knowledge.
Tool 4 — Disclosure statement outline
⭐ This frames the case for the attorney who decides intervention. It deserves more care than the complaint.
WRITTEN DISCLOSURE OF SUBSTANTIALLY ALL MATERIAL EVIDENCE
I. Summary. Two paragraphs: what the defendant did, why it is false, and why it matters to payment.
II. The relator. Position, tenure, responsibilities, and precisely how the relator came to know each fact.
III. The defendant. Corporate structure, federal programs participated in, and claim volume.
IV. The scheme. Chronological, with dates. For each fact, state whether the relator observed it, was told it, or inferred it. ⭐ This distinction, made explicitly and repeatedly, is what earns credibility.
V. Falsity. What was submitted, what was true, and how the difference is provable.
VI. Materiality. The requirement, its source, and evidence about how the agency treats noncompliance.
VII. Knowledge. What the defendant knew and when, with the documents and statements showing it.
VIII. Damages and penalties. Claim volume, amount per claim, and an estimate with the method shown.
IX. Evidence. For each system: what it holds, where it is, who the custodian is, and what a demand should request.
X. Witnesses. Name, role, and what each would confirm.
XI. Bars. Public disclosure searches conducted and results; original source basis; no known prior filer; limitations analysis.
XII. Weaknesses. ⭐ State them plainly. A disclosure that identifies its own problems earns credibility that carries the case; hiding them loses it permanently when the government finds them.
XIII. Related proceedings. Any internal investigation, audit, or parallel matter known to the relator.
Tool 5 — Complaint elements checklist
☐ Jurisdiction and venue under 31 U.S.C. § 3732 ☐ Filed in camera and under seal; ⚠ not served on the defendant ☐ Parties, including the United States as real party in interest ☐ The federal program and the payment mechanism ☐ The specific provision of 31 U.S.C. § 3729 violated, count by count ☐ Particularity under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9 — ⚠ this dismisses more qui tam complaints than any substantive defense ☐ Specific claims identified where possible: date, amount, claim number, and why false ☐ Where specific claims are unavailable: a detailed scheme plus reliable indicia that claims were submitted ☐ Materiality allegations tied to agency conduct, per Escobar ☐ Scienter allegations addressing subjective belief, per SuperValu ☐ Reverse false claim count where an obligation was avoided ☐ Kickback linkage where applicable — 42 U.S.C. § 1320a-7b ☐ Self-referral count where applicable — 42 U.S.C. § 1395nn ☐ Related state law counts ☐ Retaliation count under 31 U.S.C. § 3730 — ⭐ the relator's own claim, not sealed ☐ Prayer for treble damages, penalties, the relator's share, fees, and costs ☐ Anticipated motions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12; discovery planning under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26
Tool 6 — Seal compliance card
Print. Give to the relator.
WHILE THE CASE IS SEALED ☐ Tell no one. Not colleagues. Not the press. Not your union. Not friends in the industry. ☐ A spouse who understands the obligation may be told. Nobody else. ☐ Never discuss it on employer systems. ☐ Do not post about the underlying conduct anywhere. ☐ Do not confront anyone or hint that something is coming. ☐ Do not investigate on your own. ☐ Report developments to your lawyer, not to the government directly. ☐ Keep working normally if you are still employed. ☐ Log every change in how you are treated, with dates and witnesses. ☐ ⭐ Expect long silences. Months of no news is normal and means nothing about the case. ☐ ⚠ The seal does not expire because you are tired of it. ☐ If the seal is breached inadvertently, tell your lawyer immediately.
Tool 7 — Government interview preparation
⭐ The most important day in the case.
| Preparation item | Done |
|---|---|
| Chronology with dates, names, and document references | ☐ |
| Walkthrough of the billing or contracting system, in plain language | ☐ |
| List of what the relator knows firsthand | ☐ |
| List of what the relator does not know | ☐ |
| Glossary of internal jargon and codes | ☐ |
| Organizational chart showing who decides what | ☐ |
| Map of systems, reports, and custodians | ☐ |
| Witness list with what each would confirm | ☐ |
| Anticipated hard questions and honest answers | ☐ |
| Any adverse facts about the relator, disclosed to counsel in advance | ☐ |
Rules for the interview: ☐ Explain; do not argue. The government decides the legal theory. ☐ Say "I don't know" when you do not know. ⭐ That answer builds more credibility than any other. ☐ Distinguish what you saw from what you inferred, every time. ☐ ⚠ Never oversell. A relator who exaggerates loses the case in the first hour. ☐ Do not speculate about motive unless you have facts. ☐ Follow up promptly on every request, through counsel.
Tool 8 — Retaliation log
The relator's own claim under 31 U.S.C. § 3730. ⭐ It exists whether or not the qui tam case is filed or succeeds.
| Date | What happened | Who | Witnesses | Documents | Prior protected activity it followed |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Establishing notice: ☐ Every internal report, with date, recipient, and method ☐ Every meeting where the concern was raised ☐ Every email or message referencing the issue ☐ Any compliance hotline submission and its reference number
Adverse actions to log: ☐ Discharge, demotion, suspension ☐ Schedule or shift changes ☐ Reassignment or exclusion from projects ☐ Removal from meetings or distribution lists ☐ Sudden negative reviews ☐ Increased scrutiny or discipline ☐ Threats or harassment ☐ Denial of training or advancement
Evidence to preserve now: ☐ Prior performance reviews and commendations ☐ Metrics showing performance ☐ Comparator treatment ☐ ⚠ Preserve before it disappears. Access to systems ends abruptly on termination.
☐ Remedies: reinstatement with seniority, double back pay, interest, and special damages including costs and fees. Three-year period. ☐ Other statutes have different protected classes — 15 U.S.C. § 78u-6, 26 U.S.C. § 7623, 10 U.S.C. § 2409, and for federal employees 5 U.S.C. § 2302, 5 U.S.C. § 1213, 5 U.S.C. § 1214, 5 U.S.C. § 1221. ⚠ Digital Realty Trust v. Somers limits securities antiretaliation protection to those who report to the Commission. ☐ See whistleblower and retaliation claims and reporting misconduct and preserving a retaliation claim.
Tool 9 — Unsealing plan
Prepare months in advance. ⭐ Nothing about unsealing is a surprise except its timing.
| Item | Plan | Ready |
|---|---|---|
| Current employment — stay or leave | ☐ | |
| What you will say to colleagues | ☐ | |
| Financial runway, in months | ☐ | |
| Health insurance continuity | ☐ | |
| References for future employment | ☐ | |
| Whether to change fields, and to what | ☐ | |
| Family members to be told, and when | ☐ | |
| Media policy — through counsel or decline | ☐ | |
| Social media review | ☐ | |
| Security or harassment concerns | ☐ | |
| Retaliation claim status | ☐ |
☐ ⚠ The industry is smaller than you think. Some relators change fields entirely. ☐ See responding to a termination and reviewing a severance agreement and at-will does not mean for any reason.
Tool 10 — Share contribution memorandum
The share ranges are set by 31 U.S.C. § 3730; where within the range depends on contribution. ⭐ Document it as you go, not at the end.
| Contribution | Detail | Date | Documented |
|---|---|---|---|
| Initial disclosure quality and completeness | ☐ | ||
| Hours spent preparing the disclosure | ☐ | ||
| Government interviews attended | ☐ | ||
| Systems and custodians identified | ☐ | ||
| Documents interpreted or translated | ☐ | ||
| Witnesses identified | ☐ | ||
| Follow-up questions answered | ☐ | ||
| Testimony given or offered | ☐ | ||
| Personal and professional cost incurred | ☐ | ||
| Whether the government would plausibly have found this without the relator | ☐ |
☐ ⚠ Reductions apply where the relator planned and initiated the violation; ⚠ the share is eliminated and the relator dismissed on conviction of related criminal conduct. ☐ Fees and costs are sought from the defendant. ☐ Alternate remedy: share rights survive if the government proceeds administratively — see the Program Fraud Civil Remedies Act at 31 U.S.C. § 3801, 31 U.S.C. § 3802, and 31 U.S.C. § 3803.
Tool 11 — Settlement review and tax planning
| Item | Confirmed |
|---|---|
| Scope of the release — what claims, by whom, against whom | ☐ |
| Is the retaliation claim included or preserved? | ☐ |
| Are employment separation terms addressed in the same agreement? | ☐ |
| Relator share percentage and basis | ☐ |
| Payment timing and any structure | ☐ |
| Attorney's fees — recovered from the defendant or from the share? | ☐ |
| Cooperation obligations continuing after settlement | ☐ |
| Confidentiality terms, and whether they conflict with public filings | ☐ |
| Court approval of the share obtained | ☐ |
| Tax characterization of the share — generally ordinary income | ☐ |
| Tax treatment of the fee portion | ☐ |
| Estimated payments and withholding planned | ☐ |
☐ ⚠ Plan taxes before the money arrives, not after. See tax controversy for individuals.
Tool 12 — Defense response plan
| Step | Timing | Done |
|---|---|---|
| Litigation hold issued to every custodian | ⚠ Immediately | ☐ |
| Systems preservation confirmed, including backups and messaging | Immediately | ☐ |
| Counsel engaged; privilege protocol established | Immediately | ☐ |
| Internal investigation scoped and privileged | Week 1 | ☐ |
| Civil investigative demand response plan — 31 U.S.C. § 3733 | On receipt | ☐ |
| Penalty exposure quantified | ⭐ Early | ☐ |
| Materiality evidence developed (Tool 13) | Early | ☐ |
| Contemporaneous good-faith interpretation evidence assembled | Early | ☐ |
| Bars analyzed — first to file, public disclosure, original source, limitations | Early | ☐ |
| Parallel criminal exposure assessed | Early | ☐ |
| Voluntary disclosure evaluated — 48 C.F.R. part 3 | ⚠ Before any case is filed | ☐ |
| Collateral consequences mapped — exclusion at 42 U.S.C. § 1320a-7, debarment at 48 C.F.R. part 9 | Early | ☐ |
| Non-retaliation directive issued and enforced | ⚠ Immediately | ☐ |
☐ ⭐ A retaliation claim frequently survives a defense victory on the merits and can exceed the underlying exposure in a small case. ☐ See civil discovery and the criminal case from arrest to sentencing.
Tool 13 — Materiality evidence worksheet
⭐ The strongest defense in most implied certification cases, and the most valuable evidence a defendant can develop.
| Question | Evidence | Supports |
|---|---|---|
| What is the requirement, and where does it come from? | ||
| Is it labeled a condition of payment? | ⚠ Not dispositive either way | |
| Did the agency know of the noncompliance? When, and how? | ||
| Did the agency continue paying after learning? | ⭐ Defendant | |
| Has the agency ever denied payment on this ground? | Relator | |
| Has the agency imposed any other sanction for this noncompliance? | ||
| Is the noncompliance minor or substantial? | ||
| Would a reasonable person attach importance to it? | ||
| Is there agency guidance treating it as essential? | Relator | |
| Is there industry-wide noncompliance the agency tolerates? | Defendant |
☐ Governed by Universal Health Services v. United States ex rel. Escobar. ☐ ⭐ Government payment practice is the evidence that matters most. Develop it through discovery, agency guidance, and prior enforcement history. ☐ Where a kickback is alleged, note that 42 U.S.C. § 1320a-7b makes the resulting claim false by statute, largely removing the materiality argument.
Tool 14 — Compliance program audit
⭐ The best defense is a program that would have caught the conduct; the second best is one documenting good faith.
| Element | Present | Documented | Tested |
|---|---|---|---|
| Written policies on billing, coding, certification | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ |
| Compliance officer with authority and an independent reporting line | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ |
| Role-specific, repeated training | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ |
| Internal reporting channel that works | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ |
| Documented response to every internal report | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ |
| Auditing and monitoring with corrective action | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ |
| Contemporaneous process for resolving legal ambiguity | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ |
| Overpayment identification and return — 42 U.S.C. § 1320a-7k | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ |
| Referral arrangement review — 42 U.S.C. § 1320a-7b, 42 U.S.C. § 1395nn, 42 C.F.R. part 411 | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ |
| Contractor disclosure procedures — 48 C.F.R. part 3 | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ |
| Non-retaliation policy, actually enforced | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ |
| Exclusion screening — 42 U.S.C. § 1320a-7, 42 C.F.R. part 1001 | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ |
| Civil monetary penalty exposure reviewed — 42 U.S.C. § 1320a-7a, 42 C.F.R. part 1003 | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ |
☐ ⭐ The single highest-return compliance investment is taking internal reports seriously. Nearly every case begins with someone who told the company first and was ignored. ☐ ⚠ After SuperValu, the good-faith interpretation defense works only if the documentation exists contemporaneously.
Tool 15 — Routing table
Tool 16 — The card
- Retain counsel before doing anything else.
- Take no documents you are not entitled to have. Describe, do not remove.
- Search public disclosures before filing — audits, not just news.
- File promptly. First to file is a race you cannot observe.
- Plead with particularity; claims data beats a description.
- The disclosure statement earns credibility by naming its own weaknesses.
- Tell no one. The seal does not expire because you are tired of it.
- At the interview, say "I don't know" when you do not know.
- Log every change in how you are treated. The retaliation claim is your own.
- Plan for unsealing months before it happens.