Kansas City Power & Light Co. v. United States
132 Fed. Cl. 28
| Fed. Cl. | 2017Background
- KCP&L sued the United States under the Contract Disputes Act seeking indemnification for costs (including a wrongful‑death settlement) incurred after an electrical accident on government property.
- The government asserted a seventh affirmative defense: an insurance offset (i.e., payments by KCP&L’s insurer should reduce government liability).
- After discovery requests and a third‑party subpoena to KCP&L’s insurer (AEGIS), three motions were pending: government’s motion to compel (documents and requests for admission), KCP&L’s motion to quash the AEGIS subpoena and for a protective order, and KCP&L’s motion for leave to use depositions from the underlying wrongful‑death (Eubank) litigation.
- The court previously denied KCP&L’s motion to strike the offset defense; discovery on the offset therefore remained proper.
- The court ordered KCP&L to amend discovery responses and produce or log responsive privileged documents, required KCP&L to obtain responsive AEGIS materials (with a privilege log if withholding), and denied without prejudice the deposition‑use motion for lack of specificity.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scope of discovery re: insurer payments/offset | Offset is legally barred; therefore insurer‑related discovery is irrelevant and need not be produced | Offset defense remains pleaded; insurer payments are relevant to offset/damages and discoverable | Court: Overruled KCP&L’s relevancy objections; ordered amended responses and production/logging of privileged docs |
| Sufficiency of general and specific objections to RFPs and RFAs | Objected as vague/overbroad/privileged/timeframe; asserted collateral source rule and privilege | Objections were boilerplate/insufficient; 30 days is proper; privilege claims require logs; refusal to respond improper | Court: Most boilerplate objections overruled; 30‑day timeframe OK; KCP&L must amend answers and provide privilege log if withholding |
| Motion to quash third‑party subpoena to AEGIS (privilege, burden, relevance) | AEGIS communications are privileged (attorney‑client, work product, insurer‑insured/common‑interest); subpoena unduly burdensome; relevance defeated by legal bar to offset | Government: KCP&L lacks standing to assert third‑party burden; subpoena is relevant and not unduly burdensome; privilege claims unestablished and largely waived | Court: KCP&L lacked standing to challenge burden; subpoena not quashed on relevance; ordered KCP&L to obtain responsive AEGIS documents and provide privilege log if it asserts privilege; quash motion premature as to privilege |
| Use of depositions from prior Eubank litigation | Depositions previously taken in same‑subject‑matter case should be usable here for efficiency (same subject, same parties or interests) | Admissibility depends on FRE and RCFC 32 requirements; plaintiff failed to identify portions, purposes, or show admissibility/unavailability | Court: Denied without prejudice; plaintiff must identify specific deposition portions and legal basis to renew motion |
Key Cases Cited
- White Mountain Apache Tribe of Ariz. v. United States, 4 Cl. Ct. 575 (Ct. Cl. 1984) (trial court has broad discretion to fashion discovery orders)
- Schism v. United States, 316 F.3d 1259 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (trial court has wide discretion in discovery limits)
- Florsheim Shoe Co. v. United States, 744 F.2d 787 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (scope and conduct of discovery committed to trial court)
- Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495 (U.S. 1947) (discovery breadth and work‑product principles)
- Moore v. Armour Pharm. Co., 927 F.2d 1194 (11th Cir. 1991) (trial court discretion in setting discovery limits)
- Petrucelli v. Bohringer & Ratzinger, 46 F.3d 1298 (3d Cir. 1995) (party must prove it sought discovery before moving to compel)
- Carney (In re), 258 F.3d 415 (5th Cir. 2001) (requests for admission should be specific and reliable for narrowing issues)
- Marx v. Kelly, Hart & Hallman, P.C., 929 F.2d 8 (1st Cir. 1991) (untimely/unspecified objections to RFPs may be waived)
- Long Island Savings Bank, FSB v. United States, 63 Fed. Cl. 157 (Fed. Cl. 2004) (admissibility of deposition testimony governed by FRE and RCFC 32)
- Yankee Atomic Elec. Co. v. United States, 54 Fed. Cl. 306 (Fed. Cl. 2002) (privilege log requirements and privilege descriptions)