Opinion
Civil Action No. 00-1837.
May 14, 2004
ORDER
AND NOW, this 14th day of May, 2004, upon consideration of the Joint Motion for Dismissal of the United States, the States of California, Delaware, Florida, Illinois, Nevada and Tennessee and Defendant Intracorp, Relator's Objections to the Proposed Settlement and Request for Discovery and the Responses of the United States and the States of California, Nevada, Delaware, Tennessee, Florida and Illinois thereto, it is hereby ORDERED that the Relator's Request for Discovery is GRANTED and the United States and the above-named States are DIRECTED to provide full and complete responses to Relator's proposed discovery requests contained as Exhibits "A" and "B" to his Objections to the Proposed Settlement within thirty (30) days of the entry date of this Order. Thereafter, the parties are ORDERED to contact the undersigned's deputy clerk to schedule a hearing on the fairness, adequacy and reasonableness of the proposed settlement.
(c) Rights of the parties to qui tam actions. —
(1) If the Government proceeds with the action, it shall have the primary responsibility for prosecuting the action, and shall not be bound by an act of the person bringing the action. Such person shall have the right to continue as a party to the action, subject to the limitations set forth in paragraph (2).
(2)(A) The Government may dismiss the action nothwithstanding the objections of the person initiating the action if the person has been notified by the Government of the filing of the motion and the court has provided the person with an opportunity for a hearing on the motion.
(B) The Government may settle the action with the defendant notwithstanding the objections of the person initiating the action if the court determines, after a hearing, that the proposed settlement is fair, adequate and reasonable under all the circumstances. Upon a showing of good cause, such hearing may be held in camera.
Girsch v. Jepson,521 F.2d 153156In re Prudential Insurance Co. of America Sales Litigation,148 F.3d 283317Girsch,521 F.2d at 157
inter alia, See Also, United States ex. rel. McCoy v. California Medical Review, Inc., 133 F.R.D. 143