Free Order on Motion to Compel - District Court of Federal Claims - federal

Case 1:98-cv-00543-ECH

Document 144

Filed 03/30/2004

Page 1 of 2

In the United States Court of Federal Claims
No. 98-543 C (E-Filed: March 30, 2004) ______________________________________ GOLD LINE REFINING, LTD., Plaintiff, v. THE UNITED STATES, Defendant. _______________________________________ ORDER Before the court is Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Defendant to Answer Interrogatories and Respond to Request for Production of Documents (Pl.'s Motion to Compel or motion).1 Further to the telephonic status conference on the record with the parties on March 30, 2004, the court orders the following: (A) Based on defendant's representations that all documents related to the gradual phase-in of JP-8 on the United States Gulf Coast have been produced, the motion is DENIED with respect to Interrogatory No. 3 of Plaintiff's Third Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production. Consistent with the ongoing obligation to supplement discovery responses, defendant shall supplement its responses as appropriate. Because the court is not persuaded that Interrogatory Nos. 15 and 16 seek information that is relevant to the issues in this case,2 the motion is ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

(B)

In contravention of Rule 5.2(a)(1)(G) of the Court of Federal Claims, the index to the exhibits attached to plaintiff's motion to compel was not filed both in front of the brief in support of the motion and in front of the attached exhibits. Interrogatory No. 15 sought information concerning a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, that was never adopted, proposing to reduce the maximum SDB evaluation preference from ten percent to five percent. Pl.'s Motion to Compel at 6. Interrogatory No. 16 seeks information (continued...)
2

1

Case 1:98-cv-00543-ECH

Document 144

Filed 03/30/2004

Page 2 of 2

DENIED with respect to Interrogatory Nos. 15 and 16 of Plaintiff's Third Set of Interrogatories and the related Requests for Production Nos. 19 and 20. (C) With respect to Document Request No. 21, which seeks all expert reports and opinions prepared by defendant's experts in all EPA cases pending in the United States Court of Federal Claims (including the opinions of Dr. George Schink and Mr. C. Alan Stevens) relating to the EPA clause in DFSC contracts or the valuation of liquid fuel products, the court STAYS consideration of the motion on this issue pending the Federal Circuit's consideration of the interlocutory appeals of consolidated Case No. 045064.

IT IS SO ORDERED. s/ Emily C. Hewitt EMILY C. HEWITT Judge

(...continued) concerning any assistance contemplated for small and minority refiners impacted by the conversion from JP-4 type jet fuel to JP-8 type jet fuel. Id. at 7. 2

2