In U.S. ex rel. Spletzer v. Allied Wired and Cable, Inc., No. 09-4744 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 12, 2015), a qui tam action alleging violations of the False Claims Act, defendant moved to compel the Plaintiff/Relator, Spletzer, to produce the Relator Statement, which Spletzer had submitted to the government as required by statute.  A Relator Statement is submitted for the purpose of providing the government with sufficient information to make a well-reasoned decision on whether to intervene and participate in the lawsuit or, alternatively, allow the relator to proceed alone.  Spletzer argued that the Relator Statement was protected by the work product doctrine and the common interest privilege; defendant argued that no privilege applied.  Defendant also argued that, even if the statement qualified as protected work product, defendant had a substantial need for the statement so that it would not have to wade through 40,000 pages of documents relating to 1,000 contracts.  The court held that the Relator Statement was protected work product, and that defendant had failed to prove that it had a substantial need for the statement and that a substantial equivalent of the evidence could not be obtained by other means.  Here, defendant had scheduled, but had not yet taken, Spletzer’s deposition.  The court explained that defendant could use the deposition to narrow the scope of its document review, and that the deposition “provides an additional avenue” for defendant “to glean what information was included in the Relator Statement.”