PROTECTIVE ORDER AMENDMENT:  May 7, 2026
CBCA 7915, 8303
VENERGY GROUP, LLC,
Appellant,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS,
Respondent.
John M. Manfredonia of Manfredonia Law Offices, LLC, Cresskill, NJ, counsel for
Appellant.
Jennifer L. Hedge, Office of General Counsel, Department of Veterans Affairs,
Pittsburgh, PA; and Jared M. Levin, Office of General Counsel, Department of Veterans
Affairs, Brockton, MA, counsel for Respondent.
LESTER, Board Judge.
ORDER1
Respondent, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), has requested permission to
provide to the VA’s Office of Inspector General (OIG) and other agencies materials that are
1 This order is being published to assist in providing greater transparency to the
public about the manner in which the Board has addressed issues in cases before it. 
Although single-judge orders like this one are binding in the appeals in which they are
issued, they are, consistent with Board Rule 1(d)(2) (48 CFR 6101.1(d)(2) (2025)), not
precedential in other appeals before the Board.

CBCA 7915, 8303 2
the subject of a protective order that the Board previously entered in these appeals.  Because
the existing protective order allows the VA to provide documents to other federal agencies
for “official use,” the VA does not need the Board’s permission to provide the protected
materials to those agencies or to the Inspector General (IG) for the purposes that it has
identified.  Even if it did not, we could not, in light of the authority provided the VA OIG by
the Inspector General Act (IG Act), 5 U.S.C. § 406 (2024), preclude the VA from providing
the VA OIG with materials in the VA’s possession.  Nevertheless, to alleviate any concerns
that counsel for the VA may have, we amend the existing protective order expressly to permit
the VA OIG and other agencies to receive protected material for the purposes that the VA
has identified.
Background
I. The Board’s Protective Order
The Board issued a protective order in these consolidated appeals on March 19, 2025,
which allows a party to designate documents or information being produced to the opposing
party or filed with the Board as “protected.”  The protection applies to particular types of
information, as follows:
The term “protected material” as used in this protective order shall mean
documents, information, or other tangible items that (a) constitute or contain
confidential research, confidential financial information and commercially
sensitive information, proprietary commercial information, and/or trade
secrets, the disclosure of which might, with reasonable probability, adversely
affect a party’s or non-party’s competitive business position and/or affect a
party’s or non-party’s legally protected rights and (b) are designated protected
material by the procedures set forth in this order.
Corrected Protective Order ¶ 1.  If a party receives protected material from the opposing side,
it can use it only for purposes of this litigation and “specifically not for any other litigation,
business, or other purposes unless approved in writing by the parties to this order.”  Id. ¶ 9.
“Except to the extent that a party or individual has received independently from this
action one or more of the exhibits marked . . . as protected,” the only persons initially allowed
access to the protected material were (1) counsel for the appellant, his staff, and appellant’s
employees; (2) “[e]mployees of the respondent agency, the Department of Veterans Affairs
(VA), including counsel for the VA”; (3) “the Board, its employees, and designated court
reporters”; and (4) if the Board’s final decision is appealed to the United States Court of
Appeals for the Federal Circuit, employees of the United States Department of Justice. 

CBCA 7915, 8303 3
Corrected Protective Order ¶ 10.  Other individuals, such as expert witnesses and consultants,
can obtain (and have obtained) access to protected material either by agreement of the parties
or through execution of a non-disclosure agreement maintained by the receiving party’s
counsel, subject to the distribution and use limitations set forth in the protective order.  Id.
¶¶ 11-12.
That being said, the protective order contains a caveat about the VA’s ability to
distribute protected information to individuals within the Federal Government but outside
of the VA if distribution is for “those persons’ official use”:
Nothing in this protective order shall be construed to prohibit the disclosure by
any federal agency party of materials covered by the protective order to other
appropriate persons within the federal government, for those persons’ official
use.
Corrected Protective Order ¶ 13.  The order also recognizes the limitations that the Freedom
of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. § 552, places on the Board’s authority to create an
absolute preclusion on disclosure of documents in the Government’s possession:
This order is subject to the exception that appeal records maintained at the
Board are accessible to the public under the Freedom of Information Act
(FOIA), 5 U.S.C. § 552 (2018), and its implementing executive branch
regulations.  Any document in the Board’s possession and subject to this order
remains releasable to the public unless determined exempt from release under
one of the FOIA exemptions.  Should a FOIA request be made, the party
generating a record being sought that is subject to this order will be afforded
an opportunity to assert the applicability of an exemption.  Nothing in this
order, however, shall render inapplicable any statutory or regulatory limitations
on such disclosure that may otherwise exist. See, e.g., 18 U.S.C. § 1905;
31 U.S.C. § 716(e)(l).
Corrected Protective Order ¶ 13.
II. The VA’s Motion to Release Protected Material to Other Agencies
On April 28, 2026, the VA filed a motion requesting “permission to provide
documents identified as [protected] to [the VA OIG], the Department of Justice [(DOJ)], the
Small Business Administration [(SBA)], and other federal agencies (as needed)” for
investigatory and enforcement purposes identified and explained in the VA’s motion. 
Respondent’s Motion at 1.  By order dated April 29, 2026, in response to the VA’s request

CBCA 7915, 8303 4
for expedited consideration of its motion, the Board directed the appellant to indicate, no
later than May 1, 2026, any basis for objecting to the VA’s request.
In its May 1 response, the appellant represented that, “while the protective order
permits limited disclosure within the federal government for ‘official use,’ that provision
should not be construed as authorizing unrestricted dissemination within the federal
government without appropriate safeguards” and that “[t]he protected documents at issue
were produced in reliance on the protective order and within the strict confines of the
disputed termination for default.”  Appellant’s Response at 1.  It indicated that “[t]he
contemplated disclosure to entities such as the VA OIG, the DOJ, and SBA, particularly for
investigative and enforcement purposes, extends beyond routine internal use and raises
significant concerns regarding fairness and potential prejudice.”  Id. at 1-2.  Appellant then
asked that, “to the extent the Board permits any such disclosure, . . . it be subject to
reasonable conditions, including” the following:
1. Identification of the specific documents to be disclosed;
2. Strict limitation of use to “official use only” within the receiving
agency; and
3. Preservation of all confidentiality protections, including restrictions on
further dissemination or public disclosure.
Id. at 2.
Discussion
With regard to the VA’s request to provide protected documents to the VA OIG,
paragraph 10 of the existing protective order allows VA employees access to protected
material.  Even if that did not cover the VA OIG, paragraph 13 of the protective order, on its
face, permits access by both the VA OIG and other federal agencies for the purposes that the
VA has identified.  As previously noted, paragraph 13 of the corrected protective order
provides that “[n]othing in this protective order shall be construed to prohibit the disclosure
by any federal agency party of materials covered by the protective order to other appropriate
persons within the federal government, for those persons’ official use.”  One of the Board’s
predecessors, the General Services Board of Contract Appeals, previously interpreted
language similar to that used in the protective order here as broadly authorizing the agency
holding protected documents to provide them to a congressional committee in response to
that committee’s request.  See Network Solutions, Inc. v. Department of the Air Force,
GSBCA 11498-P, et al., 92-3 BCA ¶ 25,084, at 125,050-51.  We see no reason to depart
from a broad interpretation of “official use” now.  One of the main purposes of agency IGs
is “preventing fraud and abuse in the programs of their departments.”  University of Medicine

CBCA 7915, 8303 5
& Dentistry of New Jersey v. Corrigan, 347 F.3d 57, 65 (3d Cir. 2003).  Certainly, the IG’s
review of protected material in response to the VA’s request here would constitute an
appropriate official use of that material in accordance with the Board’s protective order. 
Similarly, to the extent that DOJ or the SBA is asked to assist the IG in an official capacity
in supporting the IG, or if DOJ conducts its own investigation, the existing protective order
permits access to protected material for that purpose.
In fact, at least as far as the VA OIG is concerned, we lack any authority to preclude
the VA from providing it protected materials from these appeals.  The IG Act expressly
contemplates that an agency will share information in its possession with its IG so that the
IG can fulfill its audit and investigative functions, authorizing the IG
(1) to have timely access to all records, reports, audits, reviews, documents,
papers, recommendations, or other materials available to the applicable
[agency] which relate to programs and operations with respect to which that
Inspector General has responsibilities under this [Act];
. . . .
3) to request such information or assistance as may be necessary for
carrying out the duties and responsibilities provided by this [Act] from any
Federal, State, or local governmental agency or unit thereof; [and]
. . . .
6) to have direct and prompt access to the head of the [agency] involved
when necessary for any purpose pertaining to the performance of functions and
responsibilities under this [Act].
5 U.S.C. § 406(a)(1)(A), (3), (6).  That is, “[t]o facilitate [the IG’s] function, the Act gives
to each [IG] access to the agency’s documents and agency personnel.”  United States Nuclear
Regulatory Commission v. Federal Labor Relations Authority, 25 F.3d 229, 234 (4th Cir.
1994); see United States v. Kilpatrick, No. 1:18-CR-201-LMM-JKL-1, 2018 WL 7016350,
at *2 (N.D. Ga. Nov. 1, 2018) (in a magistrate’s recommended decision, finding that the VA
OIG “was statutorily authorized to access [a veteran’s] VA medical records” in the VA’s
possession, despite the veteran’s claims of privacy), report adopted, 2018 WL 6503504
(N.D. Ga. Dec. 10, 2018); Koch v. White, 35 F. Supp. 3d 37, 40 (D.D.C. 2014) (The IG Act
“grants broad authority to the OIG to access ‘all records, reports, audits, reviews, documents,
papers, recommendations, or other material available’ to the relevant agency.”).  We have
no authority to restrict that access.

CBCA 7915, 8303 6
The appellant asks us to require the VA to identify to it the specific documents to be
disclosed.  The existing protective order, which provides the VA with authority to provide
the documents to the VA OIG and other agencies for the purposes identified, contains no
such requirement, and we will not add one now or otherwise involve the Board in the VA
OIG’s investigation.  The appellant should assume that the VA OIG has access to all
materials from these appeals.
The appellant asks us to impose a “[s]trict limitation of use to ‘official use only’
within the receiving agency.”  Appellant’s Response at 2.  The protective order that the
Board entered on March 19, 2025, remains in place in these appeals, and we direct that any
agencies receiving protected materials honor that protective order’s spirit and purpose to the
extent that it is not inconsistent with and does not infringe upon the powers granted the VA
OIG under the IG Act.  Pursuant to paragraph 4 of the protective order, all protected material
should already be marked with a legend reading “Protected Material To Be Disclosed Only
In Accordance With Board Order In CBCA 7915 & 8303.”  Beyond that existing protective
order legend, we will not direct the use of specific monikers on documents provided to
agencies.  As indicated in paragraph 13 of the protective order, all protected material remains
subject to the protections and requirements of FOIA.
Decision
Although we view the existing protective order as authorizing the VA to provide
protected materials to the agencies that it has identified for the purposes that it has identified,
we understand counsel for the VA’s concern about and desire to avoid a possible violation
of the protective order’s terms.  To alleviate those concerns, we amend paragraph 13 of the
protective order to add the following provision to define its use of the words “official use,”
as follows:  “In allowing disclosure to individuals in the VA Office of Inspector General
(OIG) or in other federal agencies for those persons’ ‘official use,’ the term ‘official use’
includes investigatory and enforcement purposes consistent with the VA OIG’s or outside
agency’s mission.”  Respondent’s request to release protected material to the VA OIG and,
if necessary, other agencies for the purposes identified in respondent’s motion is
GRANTED.
    Harold D. Lester, Jr.      
HAROLD D. LESTER, JR.
Board Judge