Free Motion for Sanctions - Rule 37 - District Court of Federal Claims - federal

Case 1:98-cv-00720-GWM

Document 169-2

Filed 09/11/2003

Page 1 of 4

No. 98-720C (Chief Judge Damich) IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS PRECISION PINE & TIMBER, INC., Plaintiff, v. THE UNITED STATES, Defendant. DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR DISCOVERY SANCTIONS PETER D. KEISLER Assistant Attorney General DAVID M. COHEN Director KATHRYN A. BLEECKER Assistant Director OF COUNSEL: Patricia L. Disert Lori Polin Jones Office of the General Counsel U.S. Department of Agriculture 1400 Independence Ave., SW Washington, DC 20250 September 11, 2003 DAVID HARRINGTON Trial Attorney Commercial Litigation Branch Civil Division Department of Justice Attn: Classification Unit 1100 L Street, N.W., 8th Floor Washington D.C. 20530 Tele: (202) 307-0277 Fax: (202) 307-0972 Attorneys for Defendant

Case 1:98-cv-00720-GWM

Document 169-2

Filed 09/11/2003

Page 2 of 4

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page(s) TABLE OF AUTHORITIES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR DISCOVERY SANCTIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 BACKGROUND . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 ARGUMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 I. II. Standard Of Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Precision Pine Has Violated The Court's July 15, 2003 Order . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 A. Precision Pine's Objections To The United States' Interrogatories Are Without Merit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1. The Court Has Ruled Upon And Rejected Precision Pine's Objections That The United States' Interrogatories Are Overly Broad and Unduly Burdensome . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Precision Pine Waived The Other Objections It Now Asserts . . . . 6

2. B.

Precision Pine's Interrogatory Answers Abuse The Option Afforded By RCFC 33(d) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 1. 2. The Option Of Producing Business Records In Lieu Of A Narrative Interrogatory Answer Is Strictly Limited . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Precision Pine Has "Dumped" Approximately 185 Boxes Of Documents Upon The United States Without Regard To The Requirements Of RCFC 33(d) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Precision Pine Has Deliberately Impeded The United States' Concerted Effort To Review And Copy The Documents That Precision Pine Offered To "Make Available" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

3.

i

Case 1:98-cv-00720-GWM

Document 169-2

Filed 09/11/2003

Page 3 of 4

C.

Precision Pine's Answers To Numerous Other Interrogatories Are Incomplete Or Non-Responsive . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 1. Precision Pine's Non-Responsive Answer To Interrogatory No. 27 Is A Deliberate Attempt To Withhold Essential Information That Warrants Strong Sanctions Pursuant To RCFC 37(b) . . . . . . . . . 14 Precision Pine's Answer To Interrogatory No. 9 Is Evasive And Incomplete . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Precision Pine's Answer To Interrogatory No. 12 Is NonResponsive . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Precision Pine's Answer To Interrogatory No. 22 Is Incomplete 19 Precision Pine's Answer To Interrogatory No. 34 Is Incomplete 20 Precision Pine's Answer To Interrogatory No. 35 Is Incomplete 21 Precision Pine's Answer To Interrogatory No. 36 Is Incomplete 22 Precision Pine's Answer To Interrogatory No. 37 Is NonResponsive . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Precision Pine's Answer To Interrogatory No. 41 Is Incomplete 24

2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.

CONCLUSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

ii

Case 1:98-cv-00720-GWM

Document 169-2

Filed 09/11/2003

Page 4 of 4

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES FEDERAL CASES Alaska Pulp Corp. v. United States, 41 Fed. Cl. 611 (1998) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3, 16 Capacchione v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools, 182 F.R.D. 486 (W.D.N.C. 1998) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Cochran Consulting Inc., v. Uwatee USA Inc., 102 F.3d 1224, 1231-32 (Fed. Cir. 1996) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Colorado v. Schmidt-Tiago Construction Co., 108 F.R.D. 731 (D. Colo. 1985) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Govas v. Chalmers, 965 F.2d 298, 301-02 (7th Cir. 1992) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Inssurance Corp. of Ireland v. Compagnie des Bauxites de Guineee, 456 U.S. 694, 707 (1982) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Morris v. United States, 37 Fed. Cl. 207, 213 (1997) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Oleson v. Kmart Corp., 175 F.R.D. 650, 654 (D. Kan. 1997) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 S.E.C. v. Cymaticolor Corp., 106 F.R.D. 545 (S.D.N.Y. 1985) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 S.E.C. v. Elfindepan, 206 F.R.D. 574 (M.D.N.C. 2002) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7, 8, 15

iii