The government issued a final decision, finding the contractor misallocated costs on two projects. The contractor filed suit with the COFC. During discovery, the government asked the contractor to produce cost information on other projects. The court entered a protective order to prevent the government from using the discovery process to fish for information outside the scope of the final decision.
Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation v. United States, COFC No. 21-2327
- Government Claim – The government issued a final decision finding the contractor had not complied with the cost accounting standards on two projects. The contractor filed suit with the COFC seeking declaratory relief and alleging government breach.
- Discovery Dispute – The parties engaged in discovery but disputed the scope. The government requested the contractor produce documents related to 155 other projects the contractor was working on. The contractor refused.
- Motion to Dismiss – The contractor filed a motion to dismiss to block the government from asserting claims related to the 155 other projects. The contractor argued the final decision only concerned two projects, so the court did not have jurisdiction to consider claims related to the 155 other projects.
- Motion to Dismiss Was Improper – The court found the motion to dismiss was an improper means by which to object to the government’s discovery request. The contractor had filed the only cause of action in this matter. The government had not yet asserted a cause of action that could be dismissed.
- Motion for Protective Order – The court decided to treat the contractor’s motion to dismiss as a motion for a protective order to prevent it from disclosing information that fell outside the scope of the government’s final decision. The court found the contractor was entitled to a protective order. The government’s final decision concerned the alleged misallocation of costs on two projects. The government could not use the discovery process to expand the scope of that claim and go on a fishing expedition on other projects.
The contractor is represented by Thomas A. Lemmer, Joseph G. Martinez, and Phillip R. Seckman of Dentons US LLP. The government is represented by Antonia R. Soares, Brian M. Boynton, Patricia M. McCarthy, Eric P. Bruskin, and Kelly Geddes of the Department of Justice as well as Amelia Lister-Sobotkin of the Defense Contract Management Agency and Patrick L. Vergona of the Defense Contract Audit Agency.
–Case summary by Craig LaChance, Senior Editor
