Quapaw Tribe of Oklahoma v. United States
124 Fed. Cl. 43
Fed. Cl.2015Background
- Plaintiffs (Indian tribes/tribal claimants) moved for discovery relief alleging the United States produced 822,473 documents in disorganized "data dumps" and failed to comply with RCFC 34’s requirement to organize/label productions or produce them as kept in the usual course of business.
- Plaintiffs also served an RCFC 30(b)(6) deposition notice with 15 topics; the Government refused to designate witnesses for six topics, limited temporal scope for four topics (pre-2007), and designated a designee (Paul Yates) who could not answer on many topics.
- Plaintiffs sought an order compelling re-production properly organized/labeled, proper RCFC 30(b)(6) witnesses, sanctions, and fees under RCFC 37.
- The Government argued it substantially complied with RCFC 34, asserted many requests were overbroad or not amenable to categorization, and said public documents need not be relabeled; it defended its RCFC 30(b)(6) designations in part.
- The Court found the AIRR and related repositories’ files were not maintained in the usual course of business, concluded the Government failed to comply with RCFC 34 and its fiduciary obligations, and found Plaintiffs’ deposition topics comprehensive but not overbroad.
- Relief: Court ordered the Government to re-produce responsive documents organized and labeled to correspond to requests (except publicly available materials), extended discovery three months, ordered the Government to produce knowledgeable RCFC 30(b)(6) witnesses, denied extreme evidentiary sanctions, and denied fees/costs without prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Organization/labeling under RCFC 34 | Government must organize/label productions to correspond to Plaintiffs’ requests; current production is a disorganized "data dump" | Production substantially complied; many requests overbroad; public documents and documents produced "as kept" need not be relabeled | Government failed to comply; must re-produce organized and labeled productions, except publicly available documents need not be relabeled |
| Whether documents were produced "as kept in the usual course of business" | Files from AIRR and repositories are not kept in ordinary course; thus must be organized/labelled | Some productions reflect documents kept in usual course; electronic vs. hard copy distinctions justify current production format | Court found records were not maintained in usual course of business and thus organization/labeling required |
| RCFC 30(b)(6) designation and adequacy | Government failed to produce witnesses for specified topics/periods and its designee could not testify knowledgeably | Government contested scope/temporal breadth; defended adequacy of designations | Court ordered Government to produce knowledgeable persons to testify under RCFC 30(b)(6); declined to impose extreme sanctions absent bad faith |
| Sanctions and fees under RCFC 37 | Plaintiffs sought exclusion of evidence and fees/costs for motion practice | Government opposed severe sanctions and fee award | Court denied exclusionary sanctions and denied fees/costs without prejudice, allowing reassertion if further discovery noncompliance occurs |
Key Cases Cited
- Hagemeyer N. Am., Inc. v. Gateway Data Scis. Corp., 222 F.R.D. 594 (E.D. Wis. 2004) (discusses "either/or" standard for producing documents as kept or organizing/labeling)
- SEC v. Collins & Aikman Corp., 256 F.R.D. 403 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) (criticizes producing large volumes of documents in no apparent order)
- Wagner v. Dryvit Sys., Inc., 208 F.R.D. 606 (D. Neb. 2001) (finding that disorganized production does not comply with Rule 34)
- Osage Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma v. United States, 87 Fed. Cl. 338 (2009) (observing Indian records repositories are often poorly organized)
- Ak-Chin Indian Community v. United States, 85 Fed. Cl. 397 (2009) (finding AIRR records not maintained in the usual course of business)
- Cobell v. Norton, 240 F.3d 1081 (D.C. Cir. 2001) (trustee obligation to maintain and furnish trust records to beneficiaries)
- Zoltek Corp. v. United States, 71 Fed. Cl. 160 (2006) (extreme discovery sanctions, like exclusion of evidence, are reserved for willful or bad-faith conduct)