In a February blog post, we detailed the summary judgment rulings in a False Claims Act case involving Lance Armstrong: United States ex rel. Landis v. Tailwind Sports Corporation, et al. The federal government alleges that Lance Armstrong, his Tailwind Sports team, and its manager, Johan Bruyneel, submitted false claims to the United States Postal Service (“USPS”) and violated sponsorship agreements by using and then denying the use of banned performance enhancing drugs.
In June 2017, in anticipation of a November 2017 trial, the government and Armstrong filed Motions in Limine (“MIL”) to exclude evidence from being introduced before the court. The parties’ MIL, specifically those motions aimed at barring expert economic testimony via Daubert challenges, could have a significant impact on the government’s ability to meet its burden of proof with respect to damages. Likewise, Armstrong could suffer a similar misfortune on the MIL as his expert testimony may be critical to combat the government’s claims. In addition, two of the MIL, which essentially argue that “everybody does it” and that the “first to come clean benefits,” could have far-reaching implications for FCA cases in the future. Regardless of the outcome of the MIL, such posturing suggests that this matter is almost certainly headed for trial. Continue Reading Lance Armstrong False Claims Act Suit Cycles Through Motions on Way to Trial