CHESHIRE HUNT, INC. v. United States, 1:18-cv-00111-EHM

In a dispute before the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, the remaining plaintiffs, Wynnstay Hunt and D.R. Horton, failed to timely produce key documents during discovery, only disclosing them to the Government on the eve of trial.
Plaintiffs’ delayed productions included both executed and draft contracts central to the dispute, resulting in the postponement and derailment of the scheduled trial.
The Government filed a motion to compel further production and certification; the court granted this while denying a similar motion from Plaintiffs.
Plaintiffs sought reconsideration of the court’s sanctions order, arguing they had substantial justification for withholding documents and lacked opportunity to be heard.
The Government moved for reasonable expenses incurred in bringing the motion to compel, with disagreement over appropriate hourly rates for fees.
The court addressed both the Plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration and the Government’s fee petition, ordering renewed opportunity for Plaintiffs to argue their justification and deferring detailed fee determination until after the merits.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Plaintiffs were substantially justified in withholding documents until the eve of trial	Withheld only unexecuted drafts as they believed only executed contracts were relevant and requested	Plaintiffs failed to produce both executed and draft documents highly relevant to the case and ignored broader discovery requests	No substantial justification; Court found sanctions warranted
Whether Plaintiffs’ due process rights were violated (i.e., right to be heard before sanctions)	Claimed they lacked opportunity to be heard before sanctions imposed	Plaintiffs had previous opportunity to argue; sanctions proper	Court granted reconsideration only to permit further argument, but reaffirmed core finding that sanctions appropriate
What constitutes a reasonable hourly rate for fee shifting under RCFC 37	Plaintiffs argued for low hourly rate ($133-134/hr)	Government argued for Fitzpatrick Matrix rates ($553-$782/hr)	Court deferred final determination; will use same methodology for both parties after merits
Whether Government’s motion for fees should be granted as filed	Fee-motion premature and rates contested	Fee-motion warranted, government entitled to reasonable expenses for motion to compel	Court denied current motions without prejudice, to be resolved after main case is decided

Maehr v. United States, [citation="767 F. App'x 914"] (Fed. Cir. 2019) (sets standard for reconsideration: intervening law, new evidence, or manifest injustice)
Lone Star Indus., Inc. v. United States, 111 Fed. Cl. 257 (Fed. Cl. 2013) (defines manifest injustice in the context of motions for reconsideration)
Heffernan v. City of Paterson, 578 U.S. 266 (2016) (applies the 'sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander' principle in fee determinations)
Dairyland Power Coop. v. United States, 106 Fed. Cl. 102 (Fed. Cl. 2012) (motions for reconsideration are not to relitigate already decided issues)