Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alnd-2_11-cv-03577/USCOURTS-alnd-2_11-cv-03577-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Contract Dispute

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

ALABAMA AIRCRAFT 

INDUSTRIES, INC., ALABAMA 

AIRCRAFT INDUSTRIES, INC. -

BIRMINGHAM, AND PEMCO 

AIRCRAFT ENGINEERING 

SERVICES, INC.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Plaintiff,

CIVIL ACTION NUMBER:

v. 2:11-cv-03577-RDP

THE BOEING COMPANY, 

BOEING AEROSPACE 

OPERATIONS, INC. AND BOEING 

AEROSPACE SUPPORT 

CENTER, 

Defendant.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Before the Special Master is AAI’s “Motion to Compel Boeing to 

Testify on Plaintiff’s Rule 30(b)(6) Topics 30-32” (“the Motion” or “AAI’s 

Motion”), which was filed with the Special Master on October 9, 2015. The 

Motion has since been fully briefed, with Boeing submitting a Response on 

October 23, 2015 (“Boeing’s Response”) and AAI filing a Reply on October 

30, 2015 (“AAI’s Reply”). For the reasons explained below, it is the 

recommendation of the Special Master that AAI’s Motion be GRANTED.

FILED

 2016 Jan-13 PM 04:06

U.S. DISTRICT COURT

N.D. OF ALABAMA

Case 2:11-cv-03577-RDP Document 178 Filed 01/13/16 Page 1 of 14
2

I. FINDINGS OF FACT

1. AAI served Boeing with a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition notice (“the 

Notice”) on July 1, 2014. AAI’s Motion, Ex. A (“Plaintiffs’ Notice of Rule 

30(b)(6) Deposition of Defendant Boeing”).

2. The Notice identified forty (40) topics to be addressed at 

deposition, including the three (3) that are the subject of AAI’s Motion, 

Topics 30-32. AAI’s Motion, Ex. A. The disputed topics read as follows:

30. The Boeing personnel who asked for or who 

received any Pemco data from 2005-2006 in 

the course of any activity relating to the “Joint 

Recompete,” the data that was requested of 

and/or received from Pemco, and the 

documents that reflect such requests and/or 

receipts of information.

31. The Boeing personnel who asked for or who 

received any Pemco data from 2003-2007 in 

the course of any activity related to the “PreBridge Contract (Prime F42620-98-D-0054),” 

the data that was requested of and/or 

received from Pemco, and the documents that 

Case 2:11-cv-03577-RDP Document 178 Filed 01/13/16 Page 2 of 14
3

reflect such requests and/or receipts of 

information.

32. The Boeing personnel who asked for or who 

received any Pemco data from 2003-2007 in 

the course of any activity relating to the 

“Bridge Contract (Prime FA8105-D-0004),” the 

data that was requested of an/or received 

from Pemco, and the documents that reflect 

such requests and/or receipts of information.

AAI’s Motion, Exhibit A at 10.

3. Topics 30-32 cut to the heart of Counts Three and Four of AAI’s 

Third Amended Complaint (Doc. 97), exploring the “who,” “what,” “when,” 

and “where” questions associated with the transfer of potentially proprietary 

information from Pemco to Boeing. AAI’s Motion at 2. As characterized by 

AAI, “[t]hese topics essentially cover one overarching topic—what Pemco 

data Boeing requested and received and who (out of a limited list of 

individuals) requested and received such data.” AAI’s Motion at 3. 

4. Since the Notice was issued in July 2014, the parties have 

negotiated over Topics 30-32, both as to the scope of their subject matter 

and the methodology to be used in eliciting the information sought by such. 

Case 2:11-cv-03577-RDP Document 178 Filed 01/13/16 Page 3 of 14
4

AAI’s Motion at 4. Negotiations intensified in the spring and summer of 

2015, with the parties exchanging numerous proposals as to Topics 30-32. 

AAI’s Motion, Exs. H & I; Boeing’s Response, Exs. 1-3. 

5. AAI submitted its last proposal (“the Proposal”) to Boeing on 

July 28, 2015. AAI’s Motion, Ex. I. The Proposal primarily concerned the 

“method” to be used in obtaining answers to Topics 30-32, with AAI 

suggesting a three-step process. AAI’s Motion, Ex. I at 3-4. Under the 

Proposal, Boeing would first provide AAI with a list (“List A”) that identified

(a) every person on its sixty-member Recompete Team that asked for or 

received Pemco data during the relevant periods, and (b) the type of 

information (out of eighteen data categories created by AAI) asked for or 

received by the identified persons. AAI’s Motion, Ex. I at 3. AAI would then 

supply Boeing with a list (“List B”) of Bates-numbered documents that it 

wished to cover at deposition, giving Boeing the opportunity to prepare one 

or more witnesses to (a) authenticate the identified documents, and (b) 

testify as to which persons from List A had access to the identified 

documents. AAI’s Motion, Ex. I at 3. Finally, AAI would depose Boeing’s 

designated witness(es), limiting its questions to the List B documents. AAI’s 

Motion at 7. 

Case 2:11-cv-03577-RDP Document 178 Filed 01/13/16 Page 4 of 14
5

6. Evidently, the Proposal proved unacceptable to Boeing, and, as

such, Boeing informed the Special Master on July 31, 2015 that the parties 

had reached an impasse as to Topics 30-32. AAI’s Motion at 4.

7. Consequently, AAI filed its Motion with the Special Master on 

October 9, 2015, Boeing submitted its Response on October 23, 2015, and 

AAI filed its Reply on October 30, 2015.

II. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

For the reasons outlined below, it is the undersigned’s legal 

conclusion that Boeing should be compelled to comply with AAI’s Proposal, 

provided that the Proposal is modified in accordance with the limitations 

suggested by AAI in its Reply.

A. AAI Is Entitled To Live Corporate Testimony Regarding 

Topics 30-32

It should initially be noted that AAI is undoubtedly entitled to live 

testimony from Boeing’s corporate representative(s) regarding Topics 30-

32, contrary to the argument advanced by Boeing in its Response. Boeing’s 

Response at 2 (“For a number of topics, however, where it is more practical 

and efficient, the parties have agreed to provide written lists in lieu of live 

witness testimony. Such is the case here.”). Indeed, it is well-established 

that “[t]he Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not permit a party served 

with a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition notice or subpoena request ‘to elect to 

Case 2:11-cv-03577-RDP Document 178 Filed 01/13/16 Page 5 of 14
6

supply the answers in a written response to an interrogatory’ in response to 

a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition notice or subpoena request.” Great American 

Ins. Co. of New York v. Vegas Const. Co., Inc., 251 F.R.D. 534, 539 (D. 

Nev. 2008) (quoting Marker v. Union Fidelity Life Insurance, 125 F.R.D. 

121, 126 (M.D.N.C. 1989)) (emphasis added); see also QBE Ins. Corp. v. 

Jorda Enterprises, Inc., 277 F.R.D. 676, 689 (S.D. Fla. 2012) (citing 

Marker, 125 F.R.D. at 127).

Likewise, Boeing cannot excuse itself from its 30(b)(6) obligation to 

provide live witness testimony by arguing—as it has here—that its 

document production speaks for itself.1 QBE, 277 F.R.D. at 689 (“In 

responding to a Rule 30(b)(6) notice or subpoena, a corporation may not 

take the position that its documents state the company’s position and that a 

corporate deposition is therefore unnecessary”) (citing Great American, 251 

F.R.D. at 540); see also In re Vitamins Antitrust Litigation, 216 F.R.D. 168, 

172 & 174 (D.D.C. 2003).

In short, regardless of the Court’s ultimate conclusion on the proper 

form or scope of AAI’s 30(b)(6) inquiry, AAI is fundamentally entitled to live 

 1 Boeing’s Response at 12 (“In short, Boeing’s extensive document production, 

resulting from the collection of documents from scores of Boeing custodians, is the best 

and most accurate source of the information Plaintiffs now seek. Plaintiffs can go 

through those documents just as easily as Boeing can, and they cannot and should not 

be allowed to foist that burden onto Boeing in the guise of a 30(b)(6) deposition.”). 

Case 2:11-cv-03577-RDP Document 178 Filed 01/13/16 Page 6 of 14
7

testimony from Boeing’s corporate representative(s) regarding Topics 30-

32. 

B. AAI’s Proposal (As Modified By Its Reply) Is Permissible 

Under Rules 26(b)(1) and 30(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of 

Civil Procedure

Pursuant to Rule 26(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 

(“FRCP”), “[p]arties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged 

matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense and proportional to 

the needs of the case . . .” FRCP 26(b)(1).2

 

Here, Boeing attacks the permissibility of AAI’s Proposal under FRCP 

26(b)(1), arguing, in general, that the Proposal is overbroad and unduly 

burdensome. Boeing’s Response at 4 & 7. Specifically, Boeing advances

seven lines of argument in opposition to the Proposal: (1) AAI has no 

justification for seeking information about eighteen categories of data when 

it previously identified only fourteen categories of “proprietary” data in its 

interrogatory responses (Boeing’s Response at 4-6); (2) AAI is 

inappropriately and unnecessarily burdening Boeing by seeking information 

as to all sixty members of the Recompete Team, rather than the twenty-five 

 2 Proportionality under Rule 26(b)(1) takes into consideration “the importance of 

the issues at stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the parties’ relative access 

to relevant information, the parties’ resources, the importance of discovery in resolving 

the issues, and whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its 

likely benefit.” FRCP 26(b)(1).

Case 2:11-cv-03577-RDP Document 178 Filed 01/13/16 Page 7 of 14
8

individuals that Boeing has previously identified as having been 

“substantially involved” in the relevant bid (Boeing’s Response at 6-7); (3) 

AAI’s Proposal contains vague and unclear terms, potentially broadening 

the scope of the Topics’ subject matter and exposing Boeing to openended examinations (Boeing’s Response at 7-8); (4) no corporate 

representative could possibly be adequately prepared to testify as to the 

authenticity or possession history of the myriad of documents that are 

potentially encompassed by the Proposal (Boeing’s Response at 8); (5) the 

Proposal amounts to an end-run around the fifteen-deposition limit on fact 

witnesses (i.e., AAI is trying to employ Topics 30-32 to depose as many 

Recompete Team members as possible without having to use one of its 

allotted depositions) (Boeing’s Response at 9); (6) AAI previously objected 

to similar discovery proposals by Boeing, making the Proposal the 

vanguard of a double standard (Boeing’s Response at 9-10); and (7) AAI is 

most capable of obtaining the information sought by Topics 30-32 through 

examination of Boeing’s document production (Boeing’s Response at 11-

12). 

However, despite Boeing’s protestations otherwise, AAI’s Proposal 

clearly falls within the scope of discovery described by Rule 26(b)(1). 

Indeed, the information sought in Topics 30-32 (i.e., the circumstances 

Case 2:11-cv-03577-RDP Document 178 Filed 01/13/16 Page 8 of 14
9

surrounding Boeing’s receipt and possession of Pemco data) goes directly 

to the sole theory buttressing Counts Three and Four of AAI’s Third 

Amended Complaint (i.e., Boeing impermissibly utilized proprietary Pemco 

data in support of its independent Recompete bid), making it exactly the 

sort of “relevant” information contemplated by Rule 26(b)(1). Granted, the 

30(b)(6) discovery sought by AAI in Topics 30-32 must also be 

“proportional,” and it is the “proportionality” prong on which most of 

Boeing’s arguments focus;3 however, Boeing’s arguments are largely 

ineffectual as to this issue, emphasizing the burden that Boeing will be 

saddled with as a result of AAI’s Proposal, but failing to demonstrate how 

such a burden deviates from the proportionality required by Rule 26(b)(1) 

or the general corporate obligation created by Rule 30(b)(6). QBE, 277 

F.R.D. at 689 (citing Great American, 251 F.R.D. at 541 & Calzaturficio 

S.C.A.R.P.A. s.p.a. v. Fabiano Shoe Co., Inc., 201 F.R.D. 33, 38 (D. Mass. 

2001)) (“Preparing a Rule 30(b)(6) designee may be an onerous and 

burdensome task, but this consequence is merely an obligation that flows 

from the privilege of using the corporate form to do business.”). 

 3 As mentioned above, Boeing primarily argues that AAI’s Proposal is overly 

broad and unduly burdensome, factors that are considered as part of Rule 26(b)(1)’s 

“proportionality” analysis by inquiry into “whether the burden or expense of the proposed 

discovery outweighs its likely benefit.” Boeing’s Response at 4 & 7; FRCP 26(b)(1).

Case 2:11-cv-03577-RDP Document 178 Filed 01/13/16 Page 9 of 14
10

For instance, Boeing alleges that it is unnecessarily burdened by 

AAI’s insistence on seeking information as to all sixty members of Boeing’s 

Recompete team (Boeing’s Response at 6-7), and while it is a given that an 

expanded subject group will require a more taxing self-inquiry by Boeing, 

such a reality does not—absent a more particularized demonstration of the 

irrelevance of the discovery sought—permit Boeing to unilaterally dictate 

the bounds of AAI’s discovery request. (This is particularly true when the 

Proposal has built-in, burden-relieving mechanisms—e.g., permitting the 

use of data categories in lieu of specific documents when identifying the 

extent of the Recompete team members’ access to Pemco data).4 

The Proposal’s Rule 26(b)(1) permissibility is even more apparent 

when the clarifications articulated by AAI in its Reply are taken into 

account. AAI’s Reply at 6-8. Indeed, in its clarified form, the Proposal 

 4 It should be noted that Boeing’s assault on the Proposal’s use of eighteen data 

categories is—like many of Boeing’s other arguments—a red herring, appearing more 

persuasive in its context-less presentation than in studied consideration. Indeed, a 

detailed comparison of the eighteen categories set forth in the Proposal and the 

fourteen categories identified in an AAI interrogatory response largely bears out AAI’s 

representation that “the 18 categories, to the extent they do not mirror the 14 category 

names, are merely specific listings of subparts of the 14 categories.” AAI’s Reply at 4. 

Other unfounded arguments include Boeing’s assertion that AAI is attempting “to 

circumvent the Court’s 15-deposition limit to, in effect, fit 60 fact witness depositions into 

a 30(b)(6) deposition” (Boeing’s Response at 9) (in reality, AAI is not trying to depose 

each member of Boeing’s Recompete team, but is instead trying to get a sense of how 

each team member interacted with the potentially proprietary information received from 

Pemco) and Boeing’s suggestion that the information sought by AAI is more readily 

attainable from Boeing’s document production (Boeing’s Response at 11-12) (see supra 

at 7, for the clear legal fallacy of this argument). 

Case 2:11-cv-03577-RDP Document 178 Filed 01/13/16 Page 10 of 14
11

evinces numerous valuable limitations, all of which go a long way toward 

stemming the potential unwieldiness that plagued the Proposal in its 

original form. 

Chief among these is a limit on the number of “document families”5

that AAI can include on List B (i.e., the list of document that are “fair game” 

at deposition). AAI’s Reply at 7 (“AAI is willing to state, definitively, that it 

proposes that it will not identify more than 200 families of documents in 

‘Step Two’ of its proposal . . .”). This cap on List B documents not only 

assuages Boeing’s apprehensions about the open-ended potential of the 

Proposal,6 but also begins to address Boeing’s legitimate, practical concern 

about its ability to adequately prepare a corporate representative to testify 

as to the whole universe of potential documents.7

 Boeing’s Response at 7-

8.8

 5 According to AAI, “[a] document ‘family’ typically includes a parent email and its 

attachments.” AAI’s Reply at 7, n.3.

6 “Plaintiffs in effect are asking for Boeing’s open-ended commitment to provide 

binding 30(b)(6) testimony potentially on any and every document that has been 

produced in this litigation.” Boeing’s Response at 7.

7 “No corporate representative could be adequately prepared to accurately 

answer questions regarding the vast and detailed information now encompassed by 

Plaintiffs’ open-ended request.” Boeing’s Response at 8.

8 The List B limit also heads off Boeing’s argument that AAI’s Proposal would 

create a double standard, which is based, in part, on AAI’s prior objection to an openended discovery request from Boeing. Boeing’s Response at 9-10. 

Case 2:11-cv-03577-RDP Document 178 Filed 01/13/16 Page 11 of 14
12

To that end, AAI also clarified that it “is not requesting that Boeing 

identify each and every time thousands of pieces of information or data 

were transferred or transmitted,” but rather is simply seeking to determine 

“who at Boeing would have had access to [List B] documents within Boeing 

between January 1, 2005 and September 7, 2007.” AAI’s Reply at 8. Like 

the limit on List B documents, this clarification makes the corporate 

representative’s task of preparation less daunting; furthermore, it helps 

blunt Boeing’s argument that AAI’s prior objections to similar discovery 

requests created a double standard.9 Boeing’s Response at 10. 

Finally, the permissibility of AAI’s Proposal is bolstered by the stated 

boundaries of Rule 30(b)(6), which limits the required testimony of

corporate representatives to “information known or reasonably available to 

the organization.” FRCP 30(b)(6). AAI explicitly recognized this inherent 

limitation in its Reply,10 and Boeing should view its obligations under the 

 

9 “The unfairness of Plaintiffs’ proposed double-standard is highlighted further by 

the fact that Plaintiffs now seeks information from Boeing beyond that which Boeing has 

ever requested from Plaintiffs. Boeing’s Interrogatory No. 2 asked only for information 

that was exchanged from Pemco to Boeing, but Plaintiffs’ proposal goes even further, 

demanding testimony not only regarding the exchange of information from Pemco to 

Boeing, but also detailed information regarding any additional transfer of information 

within Boeing.” Boeing’s Response at 10 (emphasis added).

10 “Rule 30(b)(6) only requires a corporation to produce information and 

testimony that is ‘known or reasonably available’ to the corporation. That is all AAI 

seeks here.” AAI’s Reply at 6.

Case 2:11-cv-03577-RDP Document 178 Filed 01/13/16 Page 12 of 14
13

Proposal within this context as well. Because AAI’s modified Proposal 

offends neither Rule 26(b)(1) nor Rule 30(b)(6), it is the legal conclusion of 

the undersigned that AAI’s Motion should be granted.

III. RECOMMENDATIONS

For the reasons outlined above, the undersigned makes the following 

recommendation to the Court:

• AAI’s Motion should be GRANTED. Boeing should be 

compelled to comply with AAI’s Proposal, with the caveats that 

AAI will (1) include no more than two hundred document 

families on List B, and (2) limit its examination questions about 

those documents (aside from authenticity) to who at Boeing had 

access to the documents during the relevant period (as 

opposed to the entire internal transfer history of the 

documents). 

Respectfully Submitted,

s/David J. Middlebrooks

David J. Middlebrooks ASB- 8553-D58D

Case 2:11-cv-03577-RDP Document 178 Filed 01/13/16 Page 13 of 14
14

OF COUNSEL:

LEHR MIDDLEBROOKS VREELAND

 & THOMPSON, P.C.

P.O. Box 11945

Birmingham, Alabama 35202-1945

(205) 326-3002

Fax: (205) 326-3008

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on January 13, 2016, I electronically filed the 

foregoing with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system which will 

send notification of such filing to the following:

s/David J. Middlebrooks

OF COUNSEL

504826

Case 2:11-cv-03577-RDP Document 178 Filed 01/13/16 Page 14 of 14