The government served discovery requests on the contractor. The contractor objected to the requests. The government moved to compel. In a rather sardonic opinion, the board went through each objection and partially granted the motion. The board reminded the parties to make a good faith effort to resolve discovery disputes. The board further noted that boilerplate objections and oblique responses to discovery requests are not well taken.
Appeals of Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company, ASBCA Nos. 63149, 63150
Background
Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company appealed claims to the ASBCA. The government served discovery requests on Lockheed. The government wasn’t happy with Lockheed’s responses, so it moved to compel.
Analysis
Good Faith Effort to Resolve Dispute
The board’s rules require parties attempt, in good faith, to resolve discovery disputes before moving to compel. Lockheed contended the government moved to compel before discussions were over.
The board found the government’s efforts—sending a letter to Lockheed complaining about discovery responses—barely met the good faith threshold. Indeed, the board only let it slide because there were some issues the parties would have never agreed to. The board, however, noted that the best practice it to negotiate over matters that can be resolved so the board is presented with the most limited issue when a motion to compel is filed.
General Objections
The board noted that Lockheed’s discovery responses were filled with boilerplate objections—e.g., relevance, vague, overbroad. The board reasoned that litigants do this as a matter of course, but it doesn’t accomplish anything. The board opined that a general objection lacking specificity has no effect.
Oblique Responses
The government asked Lockheed to produce a certain subcontract. Lockheed objected, arguing the government already had a copy. The government informed Lockheed it didn’t have a copy. Lockheed then stated that it had never said would not produce the document. The board took this to mean that Lockheed would produce the document. The board opined that this whole dispute could have been avoided if the parties had been more straightforward in their communications.
Vague Terms
Lockheed objected to other requests because the terms “appellant,” “operating profit” and “operating margin” were vague. The board stated that “appellant” is not even close to a vague term. Lockheed brought the appeal and knew the identity of the “appellant.” Also the terms “operating profit” and “operating margin” were terms from Lockheed’s own documents. Presumably Lockheed knew what they meant. The board ordered Lockheed to respond to these requests.
Individuals Involved in Estimates
The government asked Lockheed to identify individuals who were responsible for producing estimates related to two contracts. Lockheed initially refused but then provided the name of a single manager for each contract. The government argued this did not fully answer the interrogatories. Lockheed said the request was too broad and would encompass hundreds of managers.
The board “confess[ed] to being naifs when it comes to understanding“ Lockheed’s estimate process. Nevertheless, the board could not see how hundreds of people were involved in making estimates. The board directed the parties to confer so they could formulate the contours of a reasonable response to this request.
Lockheed is represented by Michelle D. Coleman, Erik K. Herendeen, Stephen J. McBrady, and John Nakoneczny of Crowell & Moring LLP. The government is represented by Jeffrey P. Hildebrant, Christopher J. Hilborn, and Nicholas T. Illif, Jr.
–Case summary by Craig LaChance, Senior Editor
