Securiforce International America, LLC v. United States, 127 Fed. Cl. 386

Background

Securiforce sued the United States alleging DLA Energy breached a requirements contract for fuel deliveries to eight DoS sites in Iraq and improperly issued a partial termination for convenience and later a termination for cause; the court later found the partial termination improper but the termination for cause proper.
During protracted discovery plaintiff served requests seeking (1) contract documents re: security for other contractors awarded under the same solicitation and (2) documents about “Proof of Principle” (PoP) orders to other awardees; government objected as not relevant.
Plaintiff moved (May 31, 2013) to compel production of those contract documents and sought $219,194 in fees; the court deferred ruling pending trial and denied those requests post-trial.
Plaintiff separately moved for sanctions (Oct. 31, 2014) after a September 5, 2014 RCFC 30(b)(6) deposition of Jack Whitaker, arguing the government had provided inaccurate discovery responses for over a year and produced an unprepared 30(b)(6) witness; plaintiff sought $110,833.55.
Whitaker testified about DLA databases and spreadsheets but had not personally verified onsite deliveries; his testimony prompted a government follow-up investigation and amended admissions (Oct. 2014) that some government-owned fuel may have been delivered to several Securiforce sites prior to October 24, 2011.
The court denied both motions: it found other contractors’ contracts and related documents were not relevant to interpreting Securiforce’s contract, and it concluded the government acted in good faith, supplemented discovery promptly after Whitaker’s testimony, and Whitaker was a sufficiently prepared 30(b)(6) witness given the subject breadth and available records.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
1) Whether government must produce contract documents for other awardees (motion to compel / fees)	Documents for other contractors under same solicitation are relevant to show DLA’s obligations (security / PoP practice) and plaintiff should recover fees for bringing the motion	Other contracts differ, concern different sites/agencies, and are not relevant to interpreting Securiforce’s unambiguous contract; production offered was sufficient	Denied — documents not relevant to Securiforce’s contract claims; no fee award
2) Whether government should be sanctioned under RCFC 37(c)(1)/(c)(2) for inaccurate discovery responses about fuel deliveries	Government repeatedly denied deliveries prior to Oct. 24, 2011; plaintiff relied on that and incurred deposition and motion costs; Whitaker’s testimony showed denials were false so sanctions and expenses are warranted	Initial responses were based on reasonable review of DLA records; Whitaker’s deposition raised issues prompting a prompt follow-up investigation and timely supplementation	Denied — government reasonably relied on available records, promptly investigated after Whitaker, and supplemented; Whitaker’s testimony did not by itself prove deliveries
3) Whether the RCFC 30(b)(6) witness was inadequately prepared (sanctions under RCFC 37(b))	Whitaker was unprepared, had not spoken to report authors or site personnel, and was effectively a "no-show," so plaintiff should recover costs	Whitaker had substantive knowledge of DLA systems/spreadsheets, explained codes/processes, and government offered additional witnesses (plaintiff declined); no single witness could cover all dispersed on-site facts	Denied — Whitaker was reasonably prepared and able to testify to records; government’s offer of additional witnesses weighed against sanctions
4) Whether plaintiff proved entitlement to fees because it "proved" matters originally denied (standard for RCFC 37(c)(2))	Whitaker’s deposition and subsequent admissions established that government admissions were false and plaintiff proved the matters, so costs should be shifted	Whitaker’s testimony only suggested possibilities; the government’s follow-up investigation — not the deposition alone — produced the admissions; plaintiff did not prove matters at trial attributable solely to its efforts	Denied — plaintiff did not prove the matters by Whitaker’s deposition alone; government’s voluntary investigation produced the corrected admissions

Key Cases Cited

Ingalls Shipbuilding v. United States, 857 F.2d 1448 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (harsh discovery sanctions require willfulness, bad faith, or fault)
Societe Int’l Pour Participations Indus. et Commerciales v. Rogers, 357 U.S. 197 (U.S. 1958) (scope of sanctions for discovery noncompliance)
Bell/Heery v. United States, 739 F.3d 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (contract interpretation governed by agreement language)
Zoltek Corp. v. United States, 71 Fed. Cl. 160 (Ct. Cl. 2006) (duty to supplement discovery responses; monetary sanctions possible)
Deseret Mgmt. Corp. v. United States, 97 Fed. Cl. 272 (Ct. Cl. 2011) (RCFC 37(c)(1) remedies and exclusion alternatives)
Dairyland Power Co-op v. United States, 79 Fed. Cl. 709 (Ct. Cl. 2007) (standards for adequate RCFC 30(b)(6) testimony and sanctions)