Council for Tribal Employment Rights v. United States, 110 Fed. Cl. 244

Council for Tribal Employment Rights filed seven-count contract-based complaint on May 23, 2012 seeking damages from United States/IEED-related contracts and third-party-beneficiary rights.
Court issued a special procedures order on July 10, 2012 delaying dispositive motions and limiting discovery pending a preliminary status conference.
Order Nov. 7, 2012 allowed discovery to commence, rescinding the prior special procedures order.
Council filed a motion to compel discovery on Dec. 11, 2012; government resisted arguing discovery was inappropriate or wasteful and beyond jurisdictional issues.
Court granted the motion to compel in part on Jan. 10, 2013, permitting production requests and admissions with potential specific objections; the Council seeks $4,689.00 in fees and no costs for the motion to compel.
Government did not object to the amount; the court analyzes whether RCFC 37(a)(5)(A) or (C) applies and whether substantial justification exists.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether RCFC 37(a)(5) applies (A) or (C).	Council: full relief awarded; use (A).	USA: only partial relief; use (C).	RCFC 37(a)(5)(A) applies; full award permitted.
Whether the government’s position was substantially justified.	Council: government lacked justification; no substantial basis.	Government: reasonably believed its interpretation was correct.	No substantial justification; award of expenses upheld.
Whether the expenses awarded are reasonable.	Council: requested amount reasonable.	N/A or not objected to amount.	Expenses found reasonable and awarded.

Pierce v. Underwood, 487 U.S. 552 (U.S. 1988) (standard for substantial justification; legal doubt governs sanctions)
National Hockey League v. Metropolitan Hockey Club, Inc., 427 U.S. 639 (U.S. 1976) (discovery sanctions purpose to deter, not just punish)