United States v. Kellogg Brown & Root Services, Inc.
2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 124010
| D.D.C. | 2012Background
- U.S. sues KBR under FCA, breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and payment by mistake over LOGCAP III PSC costs.
- LOGCAP III (2001) involved KBR and subcontractors providing logistics and force protection; U.S. allegedly disallowed PSC charges and sought recovery.
- In 2007 the U.S. disallowed $19.6 million in PSC charges; later discovery revealed over $100 million similarly disallowed; KBR pursued CDA claim; court later dismissed some claims.
- KBR moved to compel discovery (Feb. 9, 2012); U.S. cross-moved for protective order; dispute centered on identification of invoices, force-protection documents, and non-LOGCAP III contracts.
- ASBCA ruled April 2 and June 22, 2012 that force protection under LOGCAP III did not categorically prohibit PSCs, affecting potential relevance to this suit.
- Court grants limited discovery: allow force-protection discovery under LOGCAP III with limits; deny discovery on non-LOGCAP III contracts; require meet-and-confer within seven days.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Interrogatory 1 identification of disputed invoices | KBR seeks identification of all invoices containing prohibited PSC costs. | Government should identify specific invoices; discovery tailored. | Interrogatory 1 adequately answered under Rule 33(d); no compel order. |
| Documents on force protection under LOGCAP III | Documents on Government force protection obligations are necessary for defenses. | Force-protection scope is irrelevant or overly burdensome beyond LOGCAP III. | Discovery on force protection under LOGCAP III is allowed with limits; not extend to non-LOGCAP III contracts. |
| Non-LOGCAP III force-protection contracts | Documents from other contracts inform Government interpretation and potential defenses. | Requests are fishing expeditions; not relevant to LOGCAP III disputes. | Denied; burden and scope too broad; not sufficiently relevant. |
Key Cases Cited
- Pogue v. Diabetes Treatment Centers of America, Inc., 235 F.R.D. 521 (D.D.C. 2006) (meet-and-confer prerequisite to compel discovery)
- Guantanamera Cigar Co. v. Corporation Habanos, S.A., 263 F.R.D. 1 (D.D.C. 2009) (burden shifts when interrogatory responses are incomplete)
- Food Lion, Inc. v. United Food and Commercial Workers Int’l Union, 103 F.3d 1007 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (trial courts have wide discretion in discovery)
- Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders, 437 U.S. 340 (1978) (discovery may lead to admissible evidence even if not admissible at trial)
- Zelaya v. UNICCO Service Co., 682 F. Supp. 2d 28 (D.D.C. 2010) (relevance of 'other supervisor' evidence to discrimination claim)
- Cobell v. Norton, 226 F.R.D. 67 (D.D.C. 2005) (deny discovery beyond scope of asserted claims)
- Murphy v. Deloitte & Touche Group Ins. Plan, 619 F.3d 1163 (10th Cir. 2010) (fishing expedition prohibition; limits on broad discovery)
- New Hampshire v. Maine, 532 U.S. 742 (U.S. 2001) (judicial estoppel applies to positions in legal proceedings)
- Ameristar Jet Charter, Inc. v. Signal Composites, Inc., 244 F.3d 189 (1st Cir. 2001) (limits on discovery to prevent fishing expeditions)
- Crawford-El v. Britton, 523 U.S. 574 (U.S. 1998) (trial courts have broad discretion to tailor discovery narrowly)
- Burlington Ins. Co. v. Okie Dokie, Inc., 368 F. Supp. 2d 83 (D.D.C. 2005) (scope of discovery must be within Rule 26)