MOTION TO COMPEL GRANTED:  June 27, 2007 
CBCA 52 
TAS GROUP, INC.,
                                                                    Appellant, 
v. 
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,
                                                                        Respondent. 
Carolyn Callaway of Carolyn Callaway, P.C., Albuquerque, NM, counsel for 
Appellant. 
Timothy P. McIlmail, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, Department of 
Justice, Washington, DC, counsel for Respondent. 
SOMERS , Board Judge.  
Appellant seeks an order compelling respondent to answer appellant’s Interrogatory 
18.  Appellant served Interrogatory 18 on respondent on May 16, 2007.  The interrogatory 
reads as follows: 
Interrogatory 18: Identify any and all persons, including experts, 
you may call to testify at trial at this matter, the matters to which 
they may testify, the basis of their knowledge about the matters 
to which they may testify, and their job titles at the time of the 
incident and today. 
Appellant’s Motion to Compel, Attachment 1.  On June 7, 2007, the Government objected 
to the interrogatory, stating:   

      
  
  
 
  
  
                
  
  
   
   
 
      
      
  
  
    
 
    
       
  
2 CBCA 52 
We object to this interrogatory because it seeks attorney work 
product and, in view of the requirement imposed by the Board’s 
January 16, 2007 pretrial scheduling order to disclose trial 
witnesses and the substance of their testimony by July 3, 2007, 
the request seeks to impose an unreasonable burden and an 
undue disclosure obligation.  
Appellant’s Motion to Compel, Attachment 2.
1 
The principal issue here is whether the Government’s objections to the interrogatory 
are well founded under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.  Under Federal Rule of Civil 
Procedure 26, parties may generally “obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, 
that is relevant to the claim or defense of a party . . . . Relevant information need not be 
admissible at the trial if the discovery appears to be reasonably calculated to lead to the 
discovery of admissible evidence.”  Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1); LFH, LLC v. General Services 
Administration, CBCA 395, et al., 07-1 BCA ¶ 33,537.  A party is entitled to object to 
discovery requests, including interrogatories, but “[a]ll grounds for an objection to an 
interrogatory shall be stated with specificity.”  Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(4).   
The Government first objects to the interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks attorney 
work product. The work product doctrine applies to attorney work product prepared in 
anticipation of litigation.  Hickman v. Taylor , 329 U.S. 495, 511-12 (1947).  Under Federal 
Rules of Civil Procedure 26(b)(3), the scope of the privilege is limited to “documents and 
tangible things . . . prepared in anticipation of litigation or for trial by or for another party or 
by or for that other party’s representative (including the other party’s attorney . . . ).”  See, 
e.g., AAB Joint Venture v. United States , 75 Fed. Cl. 448, 454 (2007) (discussing the work 
product doctrine).  The purpose of the privilege is to “encourage[] attorneys to write down 
their thoughts and opinions with the knowledge that their opponents will not rob them of the 
fruits of their labor.”  In re EchoStar Communications Corp. , 448 F.3d 1294, 1301 (Fed. Cir. 
2006).  
Although the work product doctrine protects work product created by the attorney, the 
privilege does not protect facts contained within or underlying attorney work product.  In re 
Unilin Decor N.V. , 153 F. App’x 726, 728 (Fed. Cir. 2005).  In this case, the interrogatory 
seeks only facts relating to the identity of potential witnesses that may be called to testify at 
1 The Board’s June 12, 2007, scheduling order changed the date for the exchange 
of pretrial materials, which is now scheduled to occur no later than August 10, 2007.  Trial 
is scheduled to begin on August 20, 2007.  

   
 
   
 
 
  
 
    
    
       
 
 
 
  
 
    
 
_____________________ 
3 CBCA 52 
trial.  Such information is not protected under the work product doctrine and is discoverable. 
See, e.g. , AAB Joint Venture , 75 Fed. Cl. at 454 (citing Korbell v. Reid Plastics, Inc. , 136 
F.R.D.  575, 580 (W.D. Pa. 1991)).  Therefore, respondent has not met its burden of 
establishing its entitlement to protection under the work product doctrine.  Moreover, the 
party asserting the work product doctrine must set forth objective facts to support its claim 
of protection.  AAB Joint Venture , 75 Fed. Cl. at 455.  Respondent has failed to satisfy this 
requirement.  Accordingly, the Board rejects the Government’s invocation of the work 
product doctrine. 
In addition to the assertion of the work product doctrine, the Government asserts that 
the interrogatory “seeks to impose an unreasonable burden and an undue disclosure 
obligation.”  This aspect of the Government’s objection is indefensible in light of the broad 
discovery obligations set forth in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.   As noted previously, 
pursuant to Rule 33(b)(4), when objecting to an interrogatory, a party is required to state all 
grounds for objection with specificity.  Consistent with that, most federal courts have 
required that a party objecting to an interrogatory on the grounds of undue burden 
specifically show how the interrogatory is burdensome; a mere statement that the 
interrogatory is unduly burdensome is inadequate.  AAB Joint Venture , 75 Fed. Cl. at 457-58 
(citing McLeod v. Quarles , 894 F.2d 1482, 1485 (5th Cir. 1990); Panola Land Buyers Ass’n. 
v. Shuman, 762 F.2d 1550, 1559 (11th Cir. 1985); Josephs v. Harris Corp. , 677 F.2d 985, 
992 (3d Cir. 1982); Burns v. Imagine Films Entertainment, Inc. , 164 F.R.D. 589, 593 
(W.D.N.Y. 1996)).       
Decision 
Appellant’s MOTION TO COMPEL is GRANTED .  Respondent must answer the 
interrogatory no later than July 13, 2007.  
JERI KAYLENE SOMERS 
Board Judge