Share:
The contractors in a consolidated case filed a motion to compel a response after the government objected to 16 of its request for admissions (RFAs). The government argued the RFAs sought purely legal conclusions. The Court granted the contractor’s motion because opinions and conclusions of law were within the scope of its rules for discovery if they were sufficiently related to the facts of the case.
AETC II Privatized Housing, LLC et al., v. United States, COFC Nos. 22-345C; 22-346C; 22-348C; 22-349C; 22-350C; 22-351C; 22-352C; 22-353C; 22-354C; 22-355C; 22-356C; 22-357C; 22- 358C; 22-359C; 22-360C; 22-361C; 22-362C; 22-363C
- Background – The contract involved providing housing for Navy servicemembers and their dependents in Hawaii. The contractors alleged the government breached by reducing servicemembers’ monthly housing stipend. In turn, this allegedly reduced the rent the contractors could charge.
- Motion to Compel – The contractors filed a motion to compel response. The parties in one of the consolidated cases argued the government’s objections to 16 of their requests for admission (RFA) were inconsistent with Rule 36 of the Rules of the United States Court of Federal Claims (RCFC). The government responded that its objections were proper because the RFAs sought admission or denials on pure questions of law. COFC sided with the contractors and granted the contractors’ motion to compel a response.
- Contractual Terms and Obligations (10 RFAs) – COFC found 10 of the contractors’ RFAs asked the government to admit or deny statements pertaining to terms of the parties’ contracts. The government argued these RFAs required contractual interpretation which always involved pure questions of law. The court disagreed. “Opinions or conclusions of law” are within the scope of Rule 36 if they “relate to the facts of the case.”
- Application of Federal Statutes (6 RFAs) – COFC found the contractors’ other 6 RFAs which dealt with the application of federal statutes also complied with Rule 36. The court admitted there was conflicting caselaw with these because judges draw the line differently. Some courts concluded that requests to admit whether a party’s conduct complied with a statute seeks legal conclusions related to facts of the case. Others found similar RFAs pure legal conclusions.
- Permissible: COFC found two were permissible because there were no abstract legal questions. Instead, it asked whether the secretary followed the Basic Allowance for Housing (BAH) statute by calculating BAH in a certain manner. These were closely tied to the facts of the case.
- Closer Call: COFC found two more were a closer call, but still satisfied Rule 36. These requests sought an admission that “the Secretary was required to follow the BAH Statute.” Both specifically referenced BAH calculations for the project thereby establishing a relatively thin link to relevant facts.
- Straddle: Finally, COFC found two other RFAs straddled the line but were sufficiently related to facts. They asked whether “37 U.S. Code § 403 has required that the Secretary prescribe the rates of the basic allowance for housing,” and whether the statutory provision required as much. Because both RFAs referenced the project and rates at issue in the litigation, the Court concluded the RFAs complied with Rule 36.
Share:
