Cable & Computer Technology, Inc. v. Lockheed Saunders, Inc.
Not reported in F.Supp. (1997)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A party resisting discovery of contention interrogatories bears the burden of showing why discovery should not be allowed; the propounding party is not required to justify seeking such information early in the litigation.
Facts:
- In 1993, Cable & Computer Technology, Inc. (CCT) and Lockheed Saunders, Inc. (Saunders) began a joint collaboration to design and upgrade a "mission computer" for military aircraft.
- CCT and Saunders entered a written teaming agreement in 1993 which expired in 1995, but they continued to work together to develop the computer upgrade.
- In 1996, Boeing requested bids for a contract to upgrade the mission computers, and Saunders represented to both CCT and Boeing that it would be a subcontractor on CCT's bid.
- Relying on Saunders's representations, CCT successfully prequalified as a prime contractor for the Boeing contract, incurring substantial expenses in the process.
- CCT alleges that after Lockheed acquired another company, Owego, representatives of Saunders and Owego secretly devised a scheme for Owego to win the contract instead of the CCT/Saunders team.
- In furtherance of the alleged scheme, Saunders delayed signing a formal teaming agreement with CCT and then withdrew from the team at the last minute.
- Because Saunders withdrew, CCT was unable to submit a bid, and Boeing ultimately awarded the contract to the Lockheed-affiliated company, Owego.
- CCT also alleges that on a separate radar simulator upgrade project, Saunders concealed the fact that it submitted a bid cutting CCT out and instead using other Lockheed entities for the work.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiff Cable & Computer Technology, Inc. filed a complaint against Defendants Lockheed Sanders, Inc., et al. in the Superior Court for Orange County, California.
- Defendants removed the action to the United States District Court for the Central District of California based on diversity jurisdiction.
- During discovery, Defendant Lockheed Martin Corp. served its First Set of Special Interrogatories upon the Plaintiff.
- Plaintiff objected to several interrogatories, arguing they were improper "contention interrogatories" to be asked at this early stage of litigation.
- Defendants filed a motion with the magistrate judge to compel Plaintiff to provide full and complete responses to the disputed interrogatories.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Must a party, early in the litigation process, answer interrogatories that require it to state all facts, identify documents, and explain damages supporting the legal contentions made in its complaint?
Opinions:
Majority - Chapman, United States Magistrate Judge
Yes. A party must answer contention interrogatories early in litigation. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26 and 33 permit wide-ranging discovery, and interrogatories are not objectionable merely because they ask for an opinion or contention that relates to the application of law to fact. The court rejected the approach of 'In re Convergent Technologies', which placed a burden on the propounding party to justify early contention interrogatories. Instead, this court held that the burden remains on the party resisting discovery to show why the interrogatories should not be answered. Requiring a plaintiff to provide the factual basis for its complaint is consistent with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, which requires that allegations have some factual basis. The plaintiff must answer based on the information it currently possesses and can supplement or amend its answers later as required by Rule 26(e).
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the standard for contention interrogatories in the Central District of California, favoring a liberal approach to discovery. By rejecting the more restrictive standard from 'In re Convergent Technologies' (N.D. Cal.), the court reinforces that the burden is on the resisting party to justify its objections. This ruling encourages early development of the factual bases for claims, potentially narrowing issues sooner and facilitating more efficient litigation. It signals to plaintiffs that they must be prepared to substantiate their pleaded allegations from the outset of the discovery process, rather than waiting until discovery is nearly complete.
