under § 3730(e)(4)(A). Finally, we consider whether the GAO report was a “public disclosure” under § 3730(e)(4)(A). The GAO report disclosed generally that some contractors performing the 254 ESPCs granted between 1999 and 2003 had engaged in the activity Relators allege is fraudulent, but the report did not disclose the names of any contractors or specify any locations where an ESPC may have involved fraud. Because of the large number of ESPCs granted and the GAO report’s lack of specificity, the report did not contain sufficient information to enable the government to pursue an investigation against Honeywell. Accordingly, the GAO report was not a “public disclosure” under § 3730(e)(4)(A). See United States v. Alcan Elec. and Eng’g, Inc., 197 F.3d 1014, 1019 (9th Cir.1999) (<HOLDING>). Because neither the AAA reports nor the GAO
recognizing that information disclosed in private is not a public disclosure under the fca holding that the only relevant public interest in disclosure is the extent to which disclosure would serve the core purpose of the foia which is contributing significantly to public understanding of the operations or activities of the government  holding that the disclosure is a public disclosure within the meaning of the fca if the the prior public disclosure  contained enough information to enable the government to pursue an investigation against the defendant holding that the government must provide the party seeking disclosure with a detailed index describing the documents the government claims are exempt from disclosure under foia holding that where an authorized disclosure is voluntarily made to a nonfederal party whether or not that disclosure is denominated confidential the government waives any claim that the information is exempt from disclosure under the deliberative process privilege