United States v. Kellogg Brown & Root Services, Inc.
2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 129367
| D.D.C. | 2012Background
- United States sues KBR under False Claims Act and for contract breaches related to LOGCAP III in Iraq.
- Discovery period ordered Oct 30, 2011–May 1, 2012; disputes over scope and timing of depositions.
- KBR sought Rule 30(b)(6) deposition notices, including informal drafts, with dates often open or to be mutually agreed.
- May 9, 2012Rule 30(b)(6) notice was untimely as discovery closed; the government initially consented to May 1 deposition date then withdrew.
- Court recently allowed additional discovery on force-protection issues under LOGCAP III, influencing whether to grant a protective order.
- Court denies protective order and allows the untimely notice to stand, citing good cause and upcoming additional discovery.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether untimely 30(b)(6) notice warrants a protective order | KBR untimely notice; protective order warranted | Informal scheduling attempts show diligence; no prejudice | No protective order; late notice allowed |
| Whether there is good cause to amend the scheduling order to permit late discovery | Late notice disrupts schedule; burden on government | KBR acted diligently; good cause exists given ongoing discovery | Good cause exists; allow late notice to stand |
| Whether the government will suffer undue prejudice from late notice | Untimely action creates prejudice to discovery plan | No undue prejudice given ongoing scope and recent rulings | No undue prejudice; discovery continues under court supervision |
Key Cases Cited
- Dag Enterprises, Inc. v. Exxon Mobil Corp., 226 F.R.D. 95 (D.D.C. 2005) (protective order against untimely discovery allowed when scheduling orders violated)
- Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604 (9th Cir. 1992) (scheduling order control; good cause required to modify deadlines)
- Beale v. District of Columbia, 545 F. Supp. 2d 8 (D.D.C. 2008) (court discretion in discovery and scheduling matters)
- Food Lion, Inc. v. United Food and Commercial Workers Int’l Union, 103 F.3d 1007 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (courts’ discretion in handling discovery and scheduling)
- United Presbyterian Church v. Reagan, 738 F.2d 1375 (D.C. Cir. 1984) (discovery rulings reviewed for abuse of discretion)