{"id":800,"date":"2025-09-29T09:25:00","date_gmt":"2025-09-29T09:25:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/jei.swa.mybluehost.me\/blog\/2025\/08\/28\/daily-makeup-tips\/"},"modified":"2026-05-11T02:33:30","modified_gmt":"2026-05-11T02:33:30","slug":"what-if-i-signed-an-nda","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/gallagherlipshutz.com\/blog\/what-if-i-signed-an-nda\/","title":{"rendered":"What If I Signed An NDA?"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\n
\n
\n
\n

Kathleen Gallagher<\/span><\/a>\u2002\u00b7\u2002September 29, 2025\u2002\u00b7\u20023-min read<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Core Rule in the Ninth Circuit<\/strong><\/strong><\/h2><\/div>\n\n\n\n

If you signed a non-disclosure agreement or a \u201cgeneral release,\u201d that document typically cannot stop you from later bringing a False Claims Act whistleblower case when the United States did not yet know about your allegations at the time you signed the release or NDA. United States ex rel. Green v. Northrop Corp., 59 F.3d 953, 969 (9th Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 518 U.S. 1018 (1996)<\/span><\/a>.This rule exists to serve the public interest. Congress designed the False Claims Act to encourage insiders to report fraud, to supplement Government enforcement, and to protect the public\u2019s stake in federal programs; enforcing private releases before the Government even learns of the misconduct would undermine those goals and risk harming the United States\u2019 interests.
<\/p>\n\n\n\n

What do \u201creleases\u201d look like in practice?<\/strong> Some agreements are narrow (for example, waiving only False Claims Act claims); others are broad \u201cgeneral releases\u201d that purport to waive \u201cany and all\u201d claims, often packaged with confidentiality and non-disparagement clauses in severance or settlement paperwork. Regardless of how the release is worded, a release signed while the United States is unaware of the alleged fraud cannot be used to shut down a later False Claims Act whistleblower case.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Key Caveat: When the Government Already Knows<\/strong><\/strong><\/strong><\/h2><\/div>\n\n\n\n

There is an important exception. If the Government already knew your allegations and finished its investigation before you signed, the Ninth Circuit has treated a release as valid against a later False Claims Act whistleblower lawsuit. United States ex rel. Hall v. Teledyne Wah Chang Albany, 104 F.3d 230, 231, 233 (9th Cir. 1997)<\/span><\/a>. In other words, the critical factor isn\u2019t simply when you signed the release; it\u2019s whether the United States already had the information and completed its work when you signed it. When the Government is already on notice and has investigated, the public policy rationale carries less weight because the Government has not been deprived of the information it needs to protect taxpayer funds.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Post-Filing Releases Require DOJ and Court Consent<\/strong><\/strong><\/strong><\/strong><\/h2><\/div>\n\n\n\n

Once a False Claims Act case is filed, it is the United States\u2019 case, and it may be dismissed only if both the court and the Attorney General give written consent and state their reasons. That means a private post-filing release cannot on its own dispose of False Claims Act claims; DOJ and the court must sign off to protect the Government\u2019s interests.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Practical Guidance if You Already Signed an NDA <\/strong><\/strong><\/strong><\/strong><\/strong><\/h2><\/div>\n\n\n\n