Minge et al v. TECT Corporation et al

Filing 175

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER granting in part and denying in part 144 Motion to Compel. Signed by Magistrate Judge Kenneth G. Gale on 7/8/2011. (df)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF KANSAS
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA EX REL. )
MINGE, et al.,
)
)
Relators,
)
)
vs.
)
)
TECT AEROSPACE, INC., et al.,
)
)
)
Defendants.
)
___________________________________ )

Case No. 07-1212-MLB

ORDER ON RELATORS’ MOTION TO COMPEL ANSWERS
FROM TECT DEFENDANTS
TO RELATORS’ FIRST REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION
Before the Court is Relators’ Motion to Compel Answers from TECT
Defendants to Relators’ First Request for Production. (Doc. 144.) The issues
relating to the parties’ dispute concerning these discovery requests are largely
identical to those addressed by the Court in its Order (Doc. 172) granting in part
and denying in part Relators’ Motion to Compel Hawker Beechcraft Corporation’s
Responses to Relators’ 2nd Request for Production of Documents (Doc. 135). As
such, the Court incorporates, as part of the basis for this ruling, the sections of that
Order subtitled “Scope of Limited Discovery” and, except for the reference to
numbered requests, “Specific Requests.” (See Doc. 172, at 2-6.)

GENERAL OBJECTIONS
Defendant TECT interposed general objections introductory to its responses.
General objections, not applied individually to requests, are typically useless and
should be avoided. Swackhammer v. Sprint Corp. PCS, 225 F.R.D. 658, 660-61
(D. Kan. 2004). Some of Defendant’s objections, however, deserve specific
attention.
Objection No. 1 states the objection to providing documents which TECT
contends are outside the scope, both substantively and temporally, of the limited
discovery order. The Court has addressed this issue in its previous ruling, which is
incorporated herein.
Objection No. 2 objects to any request which uses the words “relating to” or
“regarding.” While it is true that some such requests, when they reference general
categories of information, may be over broad, other requests which adequately
describe and limit the requests are not. A.M. ex rel. Conservator v. Burr, 07-4040MLB, 2007 WL 4180396, at *2 (D. Kan. Nov. 21, 2007). This objection is
overruled. Objections concerning specific requests will be considered.
Objection No. 3, which objects to Relators’ definitions, is an improper “to
the extent” objection which provides the Court no assistance in determining what,
if any actual definition the respondent finds objectionable. Heartland Surg.
Specialty Hosp., LLC v. Midwest Div., No. 05-2164-MLB-DWB, 2007 WL

2192860, n.2 (D. Kan. July 25, 2007) (citing Swackhammer, 225 F.R.D. 658,
660-61). That objection is overruled.
Objection No. 4 objects to producing documents outside of TECT’s
possession, custody or control. While it is true that a respondent cannot and, thus,
need not produce such documents, this is not a proper objection. The proper
response to such a request is a simple statement that the respondent does not have
the documents. This objection also extends to documents which are publically
available, equally available to Relators, or already in Relators’ possession. That
objection is overruled.
General Objection No. 5, states:
TECT objects to each and every request that seeks
disclosure of documents or information subject to the
attorney-client privilege, the attorney work product
doctrine, or any other applicable privilege, doctrine or
limitation on discovery. TECT deems such protected
documents as not intended to be within the scope of these
requests, and will not, and does not intend by these
responses, to waive the privilege afforded such protected
documents.
This objection is improper. TECT is not permitted to pretend that requests for
documents it considers privileged were not made. Rather, it is required to respond
to the request by raising the privilege and describing the documents sufficiently,
through a privilege log, for other parties to assess the claim of privilege. Fed. R.
Civ. Proc. 26(b)(5)(a). This objection is overruled.

General Objections 6 and 7, which object to any request that is improper
under the Federal Rules, and which state that a response does not concede the
admissibility of any document, are overruled for the reasons stated in the Court’s
previous rulings in this case. (See Docs. 154, 172.) General Objection No. 8 is not
a proper objection, but reserves the right of TECT to supplement it responses when
it discovers additional information. This duty exists with or without Defendant’s
objection. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(e).
Specific Requests
Documents limited to types of spars installed on identified aircraft, even
if installed on other aircraft or not installed, during limited time period: The
Relators are entitled to conduct discovery into the process used to manufacture the
spars on identified aircraft. The Court will allow discovery of manufacturing
techniques intended (planned, contracted, promised) or actually used to
manufacture the types of spars installed on the identified aircraft during, and within
6 months before or after, the manufacture of any spar installed on an identified
aircraft, regardless of whether the spars were installed on an identified aircraft.
The Court GRANTS the Relator’s motion to compel limited to requested
documents relating to the types of spars installed on identified aircraft
manufactured within 6 months of the manufacture of any spar installed on an
identified aircraft: Requests Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 8 , 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18,

23, 24, 25, 26, 29, 30, 32, 34, 35, 42, 46, 47, 56, 57, 61, 63, 65, 74, 75, 76, 78, 80,
81, 82. 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 89, 90, 91, 93, 95, 96, and 100. Documents concerning
materials should be produced if they are applicable to materials used for spars
during this period.
Documents which address alleged improper techniques on type of spar
regardless of time: Relators are entitled to conduct discovery targeted to learning
Defendant’s knowledge that the alleged false claims were knowingly made. (See
Doc. 172). Therefore, the Court will allow discovery into documents which
actually address the use of the techniques alleged to be improper as to the type of
spar at issue throughout the history of the program, up to the present day. This
discovery includes only evidence of the use of “hand forming” or “hot forming” as
alleged in Relators’ Fourth Amended Complaint. (Doc. 80.) Also allowed is
discovery of documents or communications concerning such practices, and
changes in those practices over time, up to the present. The Court GRANTS
Relator’s motion to compel limited to documents, not produced under one of the
previous categories, which actually address the alleged improper manufacturing
techniques, regardless of time limitation. Requests Nos. 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, 21, 24, 25,
26, 27, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 61, 64, 69, 78, 93, 95, 96, 103, and 104. (Some of these
Requests are also listed in the above paragraph; such documents need be produced
as to spars manufactured outside of the time period in the previous section only if

they address the alleged improper techniques.)
The Court DENIES Relators’ motion to compel as to the following:
Request No. 39 because Relators have made an insufficient showing that the
request is relevant or may lead to relevant evidence.
The Court GRANTS Realtors’ motion to compel without limitation the
following: Requests Nos. 36, 37, 43, 44, 45, 62, 66, 67, 68, 70, , 88, 92, and 94.
The Court GRANTS Relators’ motion to compel as to the following:
Request No. 40 limited to 7075T73511 QQ-A-200/11 or 2024 T3511 QQ-A-200/3.
The Court GRANTS Relators’ motion to compel as to the following:
Requests Nos. 109-111, which are personnel files of Relators and David Roll, a
key witness. This evidence will be relevant later to the retaliation claims, and thus
eventually discoverable. However it is relevant at this stage because the Relators
and Mr. Roll are important witnesses as to the claims now at issue. Williams v.
Board of Co. Comm’rs, No. 98-2485-JTM, 2000 WL 823909, at *4-5 (D. Kan.
June 21, 2000). Mr. Roll’s file should contain copies of documents redacted as to
his Social Security number and should be produced under the protective order
entered in this case. The parties should work together to determine if additional
information within the file is private, confidential, and/or irrelevant to this case.
The Relators’ motion is, therefore, GRANTED in part and DENIED in

part as set forth above. The TECT Defendants will provided the supplemental
responses required by this ruling on or before July 29, 2011.1

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Relators’ Motion to Compel
Answers from TECT Defendants to Relators’ First Requests for Production (Doc.
144) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as more fully set forth above.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated at Wichita, Kansas, on this 8th day of July, 2011.

S/ KENNETH G. GALE

KENNETH G. GALE
United States Magistrate Judge

1

Although a deadline was not stated in the Court’s corollary Order (Doc. 172), the Court
incorporates this same deadline into that Order. As such, Defendant Hawker Beechcraft
Corporation also should provide to Relators any responsive information required by the Court’s
July 1, 2011, Order on or before July 29, 2011.