104 Fed. Cl. 647
Fed. Cl.2012Background
- Zoltek sues over alleged infringement of U.S. Reissue Patent No. 34,162 relating to carbon fiber sheet products with controlled surface resistance.
- Northrop Grumman is the B-2 bomber contractor; discovery disputes have persisted for years in this case.
- A January 30, 2012 subpoena to Northrop sought broad non-classified documents and a deposition.
- Northrop moved to quash; the Government supported; briefing completed March 12, 2012.
- The Court had previously limited fact discovery to the B-2 program, non-classified information, and subjects not protected by the state secrets privilege; discovery closed March 1, 2012.
- The Court grants in part Northrop’s Motion to Quash and denies expansion of discovery; two requests (Nos. 11 and 14, as modified) may be answered.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scope of subpoena vs. court orders | Zoltek seeks broad information to prove liability/damages and overcome state secrets limits. | Requests exceed the Court’s limited scope (B-2, non-classified, no accounting). | Subpoena limited; overbreadth warranting quash or modification. |
| Whether discovery should be enlarged in light of Urig deposition | New deposition suggests new information warranting expanded discovery. | No new material information; prior productions and schedules already provided. | Enlargement denied; no substantial new discovery. |
| Privilege and burden considerations in specific requests | Privilege does not bar all discovery; state secrets limit should yield new data. | Many requests seek privileged/classified material; burden outweighs likely benefit. | Requests tied to privileged/classified information quashed; remaining permissible requests narrowly tailored. |
| Compliance and timing after discovery close | Counts as ongoing relief; contends for more time. | Discovery closed; only two modified requests may be answered. | No enlargement of discovery; compliance limited to two modified requests. |
Key Cases Cited
- Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders, 437 U.S. 340 (U.S. 1978) (relevance need not be admissible; discovery aims to obtain evidence)
- Schism v. United States, 316 F.3d 1259 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (broad discretion over discovery scope and limits)
- Florsheim Shoe Co. v. United States, 744 F.2d 787 (Fed.Cir. 1984) (scope and limits of discovery, balancing burden and relevance)
- Jade Trading, LLC v. United States, 65 Fed.Cl. 188 (Fed.Cl. 2005) (undue burden factors for subpoenas)
- Truswal Sys. Corp. v. Hydro-Air Eng’g, Inc., 813 F.2d 1207 (Fed.Cir. 1987) (burden of demonstrating undue burden in subpoenas)