MEMORANDUM *

1. “[T]he public disclosure originated in ... sources enumerated in the” False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. § 3730(e)(4)(A). A-1 Ambulance Serv., Inc. v. California, 202 F.3d 1238, 1243 (9th Cir. 2000). In light of our case law’s broad construction of “investigation” in this statute, see Seal 1 v. Seal A, 255 F.3d 1154, 1161 (9th Cir. 2001), the Utah Attorney General’s correspondence qualifies as an enumerated source.

2. Relators’ suit is “ ‘based upon’ ... prior public disclosure.” United States ex rel. Meyer v. Horizon Health Corp., 565 F.3d 1195, 1199 (9th Cir. 2009). “[T]he evidence and information in the possession of the United States at the time the False Claims Act suit was brought was sufficient to enable it adequately to investigate the case and to make a decision whether to prosecute.” United States ex rel. Found Aiding the Elderly v. Horizon West Inc., 265 F.3d 1011, 1016 (9th Cir. 2001) (internal quotation marks omitted). The Medicaid records relators obtained from their Aaskan FOIA requests already were required by statute to be supplied to the federal government. See Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Medicaid Statistical Information Statistics (MSIS): Overview (July 21, 2011, 12:56:22 PM), http://www.cms.gov/MSIS/01_Overview. asp. Unlike in United States ex rel. Aflatooni v. Kitsap Physicians Services, 163 F.3d 516, 523 (9th Cir. 1999), this suit doesn’t involve “separate allegations of fraud against two distinct groups of defendants,” so the public disclosure bar applies here to all defendants. And, unlike in United States ex rel. Baltazar v. Warden, 635 F.3d 866, 869 (7th Cir. 2011), relators here haven’t provided “vital facts that were not in the public domain.”

3. Relators’ suit concerns ongoing conduct, not specific and discrete time periods as in United States ex rel. Bly-Magee v. Premo, 470 F.3d 914 (9th Cir. 2006). The public disclosure bar thus applies here to all claims at issue, including those made after the relevant disclosures.

AFFIRMED.