ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS 
Appeals of -- ) 
) 
Sulphur Springs Valley Electric Cooperative, Inc .. ) 
) 
Under Contract No. W9124A-04-C-001 l ) 
APPEARANCES FOR THE APPELLANT: 
APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: 
ASBCA Nos. 59802, 59856 
60016,60306 
Brett W. Johnson, Esq. 
Colin P. Ahler, Esq. 
Snell & Wilmer LLP 
Phoenix, AZ 
Raymond M. Saunders, Esq. 
Army Chief Trial Attorney 
MAJ Jamal A. Rhinehardt, JA 
Trial Attorney 
ORDER REGARDING PARTIES' REQUEST FOR AN ORDER PURSUANT TO 
FEDERAL RULE OF EVIDENCE 502(D) 
The parties request that the Board issue an order pursuant to FED. R. EVID. 502(d). 
That rule provides that: 
A federal court may order that the [attorney-client] 
privilege or [attorney work product] protection is not 
waived by disclosure connected with the litigation pending 
before the court-in which event the disclosure is also not 
a waiver in any other federal or state proceeding. 
We deny the parties' request. The Board is not a federal court; consequently, 
Rule 502( d) does not authorize the Board to issue an order that would determine 
whether a disclosure connected with the appeals before it would be a waiver in "any 
other federal or state proceeding." In the alternative, the parties request a protective 
order, but the parties on 3 
December 2015 agreed between themselves that: 
[A] Party's inadvertent disclosure or production of any 
documents or information in this proceeding shall not, for 
purposes of this proceeding or any other proceeding in any 
other court, constitute a waiver by that Party of any 
privilege or protection applicable to those documents, 
including the attorney-client privilege, work product 
protection and any other privilege or protection recognized 
by law. 

In view of that agreement, the parties do not persuade us that a protective order is 
needed. Although the parties point out that, pursuant to FED. R. EVID. 502(e), "[a]n 
agreement on the effect of disclosure in a federal proceeding is binding only on the 
parties to the agreement, unless it is incorporated into a court order," again, the Board 
is not a court; consequently, Rule 
502 does not authorize the Board to bind non-parties 
to the parties' agreement. Nor do we find authority in our own rules to do so. 
For these reasons, the parties' requests are denied. 
Dated: 8 February 2016 
I concur 
~~ 
Administrative Judge 
Acting Chairman 
Armed Services Board 
of Contract Appeals 
Administrative Judge 
Armed Services Board 
of Contract Appeals 
I concur 
RICHARD SHACKLEFORD 
Administrative Judge 
Vice Chairman 
Armed Services Board 
of Contract Appeals 
I certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the Opinion and Decision of the 
Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals in ASBCA Nos. 59802, 59856, 60016, 
60306, Appeals of Sulphur Springs Valley Electric Cooperative, Inc., rendered in 
conformance with the Board's Charter. 
Dated: 
2 
JEFFREY D. GARDIN 
Recorder, Armed Services 
Board of Contract Appeals