U.S. Ex Rel. Minge v. Tect Aerospace Inc.
| Decision Date | 18 May 2011 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 07-1212-MLB |
| Parties | UNITED STATES OF AMERICA EX REL. MINGE, et al, Relators, v. TECT AEROSPACE, INC., et al, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Kansas |
Before the Court is the Motion to Compel Discovery Responses filed by Defendant Hawker Beechcraft Corporation. (Doc. 128). While the parties have resolved some issues originally raised in the motion, disputes remain concerning the Relators' responses to Defendant's propounded Interrogatories 1 and 2, and Requests for Production 2, 4, 5 and 6.1
Relators have brought this case under the False Claims Act (FCA), 31 U.S.C. §§ 3729-33, on behalf of the United States, claiming that Defendants falsely represented that certain aircraft parts were manufactured in accordance with United State's specifications. Relators' theory, explained in their Fourth Amended Complaint (Doc. 80, "the Complaint") and in the current discovery responses, is that the parts at issue (wing spars) were "manufactured using a defective process." They allege that Defendants misrepresented that their manufacturing process would be controlled in a manner to produce repeatable and reliable wing spars. (Doc. 80, ¶2). Relators conclude that because of that process, "no one can be sure whether some or any of the spars conformed to contractually required design specifications and performance standards." (Doc. 80, ¶ 3).
Relators claim that "supplying aircraft with wing spars without the contractually required manufacturing process, quality assurance procedures and testing are per se nonconforming even if some of the aircraft... have spars with the same basic performance characteristics as those that would have been produced in compliance with the terms of the contract." (Doc. 80, ¶ 4). Relators claim that Defendants "expressly or impliedly certified that, in compliance with the contract documents, drawings, specifications and federal regulations, they had established and used a repeatable manufacturing process designed to assure that... wing spars for use on these... aircraft were made to the original design data in all respectsand had undergone rigorous testing and quality assurance procedures, even though they knew they had not complied." (Doc. 80, ¶¶ 62, 73).
The Complaint itemizes various regulatory and contractual certifications which Relators contend constitute or evidence the express or implied certifications of compliance, and establish the requirements for manufacturing processes. The allegations of deficiencies in the Complaint focus on claims of nonconforming manufacturing processes, and Defendant's claimed knowledge of the process deviations. The Complaint details some history of parts rejected (usually by Defendant Raytheon) because of defects allegedly caused by the noncompliant manufacturing process. Relators contend that some parts were accepted by Raytheon and used in aircraft notwithstanding Raytheon's knowledge of either defects, or of the use of a process that resulted in defects. The Complaint alleges that the techniques used to correct deficiencies were, themselves, nonconforming. Relators also contend that Defendants misrepresented that they had complied with design specification of particular types of aircraft. They allege that every aircraft of the named type sold to the United States had wing spars "manufactured using the defective process."
Relators enumerate specific "JPATS T-6A" aircraft which they contend were falsely certified as conforming to the contracts, "without noting that the wing spars were not manufactured in accordance with the original design data and hadnot undergone rigorous testing and quality assurance procedures." (Doc. 80, at 293.) Relators list specific "King Air" aircraft which they contend were sold with false certifications "that the wing spars in the aircraft conformed to the contract." (Id., at ¶ 294.)
Relators' theory is that an improper and inconsistent manufacturing process resulted in uncertainty as to whether any of the wing spars were conforming. They contend that this uncertainty, coupled with certifications in payment documents, created the actionable false claim. Defendant's queries in Interrogatories Nos. 1 and 2, in contrast to Relator's theory but consistent with the Court's direction that discovery focus on non-conforming parts on specific aircraft, ask for descriptions and other information concerning specific serial numbered parts on specific aircraft. In response, Relators have attempted to fit their "round peg" of a theory into the "square hole" of Defendant's queries.
Relators' General Objection 4 complains that Defendant's interrogatories place "the burden on Relators to trace specific serialized parts to every "Aircraft." Subpart (a) of Interrogatory No. 1 does exactly that. Interrogatory No. 1 requires particular information be provided and related to each aircraft alleged inparagraphs 293 and 294 of the Complaint. Relators claim they do not have the "burden" to prove that level of detail, but may rely on their theory that the nonconformity was an improper and inconsistent manufacturing process that deprived the United States of its entitled certainty that all parts are conforming.
An interrogatory is not objectionable simply because it asks for information which the respondent contends is not part of its case theory. Discovery is proper if directed to a matter relevant to "any party's claim or defense." Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1)(emphasis added). Defendant is entitled to conduct discovery to develop facts to develop its defenses regardless of whether Relators consider the facts important to their theory of the case. Whether or not Relators will have the eventual "burden" to prove the level of detail requested in these interrogatories to establish their claim is a question for trial or dispositive motions. General Objection 4 is, therefore, overruled.
Similarly, General Objection 5 objects that the detail requested by the Interrogatory, specifically the request to associate specific serialized parts with specific aircraft, cannot be provided without "extensive discovery." An interrogatory is not objectionable because the respondent does not know the answer. The proper response to such an interrogatory is "I don't know." If discovery reveals the answers, a supplemental answer may be required. Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(e). General Objection 5 is also overruled.
General Objection 1 challenges each question "to the extent that it purports -through definitions or otherwise - to impose burdens on Relators that exceed the scope of reasonable and permissible discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure." In other words, Relators are objecting to any question that is objectionable. A proper objection to a discovery inquiry should state the specific grounds for the objection. This Wonderland-esque objection fails to do so and is, therefore, overruled. The harm of this sort of objection is that it leaves the proponent unsure if information is being withheld. Such boilerplate objections are useless and should be avoided.
General Objection 2 makes a blanket "over broad and unduly burdensome" objection to any interrogatory containing certain terms that might render the interrogatory an "omnibus" query. The Court discourages the incorporation of a general objection that requires the proponent and, in this case, the Court to apply the particular objection to the various specific interrogatories - a duty properly belonging to the respondent. In the context of this specific interrogatory, however, the objection is appropriate in substance if not in form. The Interrogatory uses the word "describe" in three subparts. Not objectionable in and of itself, the Interrogatories use the following definition of the word "describe":
'Explain' or 'describe' when used with respect to a fact, event, communication, conversation, process, or allegation means to provide the full and complete detailsconcerning such a fact, event, communication, conversation, process, or allegation, including but not limited to when it occurred, where it occurred, how it occurred, the identity of all persons involved, and the identity of all documents that reflect, refer, relate to, evidence, or pertain in any way to such a fact, event, communication, conversation, process, or allegation."
The word, with this definition, does make the question unduly burdensome by requiring the respondent to determine which documents "reflect, refer, relate to, evidence, or pertain in any way" to the response. The objection to this definition in the discovery requests is sustained, and that definition is stricken. Respondent shall respond to the interrogatory within the common English language meaning of the word "describe."
General Objection 3 takes issue with Defendant's definition of the party "TECT," a term used in Interrogatory Number 3. Relator's objection focuses on an explanation of Relators' limited knowledge about who or what might have been affiliated with or acting on behalf of TECT. Not really an objection, the Court reads Relator's response in this regard as a qualification of its responses. To the extent it is intended as an objection, it is overruled.
Confusingly, Relators incorporate General Objection 6, which objects to the extent a question requests information beyond the aircraft specified in ¶¶ 293 and 294 of the Complaint. Because Interrogatory No. 1 is expressly limited to those aircraft, this objection is inapplicable and, in respect to Interrogatory No. 1, overruled.
In Interrogatories Nos. 1 and 2, Defendant asks Relator to specify its claims of nonconformity as to each aircraft identified in paragraphs 293 and 294 of the Complaint. The Interrogatory (see Doc. 129-2, at 8) requests descriptions of how each aircraft is nonconforming, and requests details, including...
To continue reading
Request your trial