Co., 576 F.Supp. 985, 989 (N.D.Ill.1983) (striking at the pleadings stage affirmative defense of estoppel where facts alleged showed an absence of detrimental reliance on the part of the defendant). Honeywell asserts that “the same facts supporting Honeywell’s affirmative defenses also support Honeywell’s non-affirmative defense that the United States cannot meet its burden of proof on the elements of a False Claims Act violation.” (Defi’s Opp’n at 14.) Honeywell represents that it expects to argue, on the same facts described above, that it was forthcoming with relevant information and therefore did not knowingly cause the presentation of false claims. The government agrees that this contention could support Honeywell’s non-affirmative defense to the action. (See Pl.’s Reply at 11 (<HOLDING>)). As is explained above, though, Honeywell’s
holding that the provisions of the false claims act allowing suit imposing liability on any person who presented false claims to the federal government did not allow suits against state governments holding that certain claims could not be a class issue in part because the complaint did not mention the claims holding both that a defendants prior disciplinary history was properly precluded because it did not involve an element of deceit or falsification and that defendants earlier allegedly false statements could not be admitted because proving their falsehood would have required the introduction of extrinsic evidence showing the statements made to be false recognizing the government must submit some evidence of property destruction but it is within the district judges discretion to determine how evidence should be presented recognizing that evidence of government knowledge of the defendants conduct could be part of a defendants argument that it did not knowingly submit false claims