or the ident 1120, 1125 (E.D.Pa.1991) (requiring government in FCA action to plead only the time-frame, the clinics involved, and the types of kickbacks involved); United States ex rel. Pogue v. American Healthcorp., Inc., 977 F.Supp. 1329, 1332-33 (M.D.Tenn.1997) (permitting relator to omit allegations concerning each instance of fraudulent conduct); United States ex rel. Downy v. Corning, Inc., 118 F.Supp.2d 1160, 1172-73 (D.N.M.2000) (allowing relator to plead general scheme of fraud where information concerning individual instances of fraud could be sought during discovery). To be sure, when a relator has access to the information regarding the alleged false claims, merely alleging a fraudulent scheme may not be sufficient. See, e.g., Eastman Kodak Co., 98 F.Supp.2d at 147-148 (<HOLDING>). Although the Relator here does not identify
holding that the plaintiff failed to satisfy rule 9b when his complaint did not cite one single false claim arising out of the defendants alleged methodology that may have produced false claim invoices holding that false arrest and false imprisonment claim were not duplicative holding that the chief financial officer of a hospital had sufficient access to the allegedly false cost reports resulting from the false invoices to require him to plead at least one example of a false claim with particularity holding that false arrest is one means of committing false imprisonment holding that both lanham act false advertising claim and a false advertising claim made under section 349 or section 350 require a showing that the advertisement was false or misleading