On October 14, 2010, Allstate filed a motion to dismiss Denenea's qui tam complaint. Not surprisingly, Allstate moved to dismiss on the grounds that the public disclosure/original source bar applies. Specifically, Allstate contends that the allegations in Denenea's complaint were publicly disclosed in Congressional investigations, media reports, and other lawsuits, including those prosecuted by Denenea himself. Allstate further alleges that Denenea is not an original source, as his knowledge of the claims is not "direct and independent" but comes only through his role as an attorney. Allstate also seeks to dismiss under the FCA's "first-to-file" bar, which precludes qui tam suits that are based on the same acts at issue in previously filed qui tam suits, and on Rule 9(b) grounds. Denenea filed his opposition yesterday. In response to Allstate's public disclosure/original source arguments, he contends that the prior public disclosures cited by Allstate are simply generalized allegations of overbilling by insurance companies, whereas the allegations in his complaint concern specific conduct by Allstate. He also contends that he qualifies as an original source despite the fact that he derived his knowledge from discovery in lawsuits, because he had to piece together the allegedly fraudulent conduct through his own analysis and independent investigation of the material he obtained in those lawsuits. We will continue to monitor this case, and report back when the court decides this motion. (Click here for the original post on this case.)