The issue in this qui tam case was whether the Austin Radiological Association’s (ARA’s) begrudging disclosure during a discovery hearing of the affiliate it had redacted from its document production triggered the public disclosure bar of the False Claims Act, thereby precluding the relator from amending its complaint and adding that affiliate as a defendant. Slip op. at 1-2. The public disclosure bar is triggered only where “substantially the same allegations or transactions as alleged in the action were publicly disclosed.” Id. at 6 (quoting 31 U.S.C. § 3730(e)(4)(A). Magistrate Judge Austin easily distinguished the cases ARA cited and granted the relator leave to amend the complaint and to join the additional defendant. Id. at 5-12.
