Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alnd-2_11-cv-03577/USCOURTS-alnd-2_11-cv-03577-6/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 Boeing’s “Motion to Compel AAI’s 

Responses to Boeing’s Interrogatory No. 1 and Requests for Admission 

Nos. 6, 14, 15, 16, and 20” (“the Motion” or “Boeing’s Motion”), which was 

filed with the Special Master on May 6, 2016.1

 The Motion has since been 

fully briefed, with AAI submitting a Response on May 24, 2016 (“AAI’s 

 1 In the interests of clarity and brevity, this Report and Recommendation will use 

“AAI” in collective reference to Plaintiffs and “Boeing” in collective reference to 

Defendants. 

FILED

 2016 Aug-05 PM 03:01

U.S. DISTRICT COURT

N.D. OF ALABAMA

Case 2:11-cv-03577-RDP Document 237 Filed 08/05/16 Page 1 of 15
2 

Response”) and Boeing filing a Reply on June 3, 2016 (“Boeing’s Reply”). 

For the reasons explained below, it is the recommendation of the Special 

Master that Boeing’s Motion be GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN 

PART. 

I. FINDINGS OF FACT 

A. Interrogatory #1 

1. Count III of AAI’s Third Amended Complaint (Doc. 97 at 72-84) 

asserts a claim for breach of contract against Boeing, alleging that 

“[Boeing] misappropriated and/or otherwise misused [AAI]’s Propriety 

Information in breach of [Boeing]’s obligations under the Propriety 

Information Protection Contracts to preserve the secrecy of and not to use 

Pemco Propriety Information” (Doc. 97 at ¶ 174). 

2. The allegations associated with Count III have been the 

subject of extensive discovery: in particular, Boeing has sought to identify 

the propriety information (“PI”) that AAI alleges it misused by issuing 

numerous interrogatories on the subject, beginning with Interrogatories 1 

and 2 from its June 17, 2013 Interrogatory Set (“Boeing’s First 

Interrogatories”). (Boeing’s Motion, Ex. 1 at 7). 

3. Interrogatory 1 of Boeing’s First Interrogatories asked AAI to 

“[i]dentify and describe all of [its] Propriety Information, trade secrets, or 

Case 2:11-cv-03577-RDP Document 237 Filed 08/05/16 Page 2 of 15
3 

other proprietary, confidential, or otherwise protected information that [it] 

contend[s] Boeing improperly used, misappropriated, disclosed, or 

otherwise failed to safeguard and keep confidential,” while Interrogatory 2 

of Boeing’s First Interrogatories asked AAI to “identify and described how 

such information was disclosed to Boeing.” (Boeing’s Motion, Ex. 1 at 7). 

4. AAI initially responded to Boeing’s First Interrogatories on 

August 22, 2013 (Boeing’s Motion, Ex. 2), and then supplemented its 

responses on January 24, 2014 (Boeing’s Motion, Ex. 3), March 31, 2014 

(Boeing’s Motion, Ex. 4), and August 24, 2015 (Boeing’s Motion, Ex. 5). As 

part of its August 24, 2015 supplemental interrogatory responses (and in 

specific reference to Interrogatory 2 of Boeing’s First Interrogatories), AAI 

submitted two lists of responsive documents—Exhibits 2A (Boeing 

documents) and 2B (AAI documents)—which, in combination, included 

nearly five thousand (5,000) document entries. (Boeing’s Motion, Exs. 6 & 

7). Explaining its submission of Exhibits 2A and 2B, AAI wrote, “[T]he 

purpose of this listing is to provide Boeing with identification of documents 

which [AAI] may use on one or more of the several topics covered by 

Boeing’s interrogatories 1 and 2 . . .” (Boeing’s Motion, Ex. 5 at 17). 

5. Drilling down on the documents identified by AAI, Boeing 

directed Interrogatory 1 of its January 29, 2016 Interrogatory Set 

Case 2:11-cv-03577-RDP Document 237 Filed 08/05/16 Page 3 of 15
4 

(“Interrogatory #1”) toward Exhibits 2A and 2B, asking, “For each document 

identified in Exhibits 2A and 2B to Plaintiffs’ Third Supplemental Response 

to Interrogatory No. 2, dated August 24, 2015, identify what specific 

information contained in each document Plaintiff contends is proprietary to 

AAI/Pemco.” (Boeing’s Motion, Ex. 8) (emphasis added). AAI responded 

on March 3, 2016 by identifying additional documents—Appendices A 

(Boeing documents) and B (AAI documents) (Boeing’s Motion, Exs. 10 & 

11)—and asserting that the information sought by Boeing in Interrogatory 

#1 could be derived from Appendices A and B, when examined using the 

PI category lists that AAI previously disclosed to Boeing on September 24, 

2014 and December 9, 2014. (Boeing’s Motion, Ex. 9 at 5-6). 

6. Indeed, AAI invoked Rule 33(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure (“FRCP”), which permits a party to produce business records in 

lieu of a traditional interrogatory response if (1) “the answer to an 

interrogatory may be determined by examining . . . [the] party’s business 

records,” and (2) “the burden of deriving or ascertaining the answer will be 

substantially the same for either party.” (Boeing’s Motion, Ex. 9 at 6—

“[T]herefore, AAI relies upon Rule 33(d) and offers [Appendices A and B] 

and AAI’s above-cited earlier discovery responses, in response to this 

Interrogatory 1.”). AAI subsequently supplemented its response to 

Case 2:11-cv-03577-RDP Document 237 Filed 08/05/16 Page 4 of 15
5 

Interrogatory #1 on April 5, 2016 (Boeing’s Motion, Ex. 12), providing 

Boeing with more particularized document lists—Appendices A-1, A-2, A-3, 

A-4, and B (Boeing’s Motion, Exs. 13-17)—the contents of which were 

categorized according the type of PI that AAI alleges they contain. AAI 

provided further supplementation of its Interrogatory #1 response on April 

22, 2016, setting forth extensive arguments to justify its use of FRCP 33(d). 

(Boeing’s Motion, Ex. 20). 

7. Unsatisfied with the specificity of AAI’s Interrogatory #1 

responses, Boeing filed the underlying Motion on May 6, 2016, moving to 

“compel AAI to supplement its response to Interrogatory No. 1 so that 

Boeing can adequately prepare its defense in this case.” (Boeing’s Motion 

at 2). Starting with the premise that “Boeing cannot prepare to defend 

against AAI’s allegations if Boeing does not know what information AAI will 

contend is proprietary,” the Motion chiefly argues that Boeing is incapable 

of independently identifying PI in the produced documents with an 

acceptable level of specificity, rendering AAI’s use of FRCP 33(d) 

inappropriate. (Boeing’s Motion at 7—“This is not a matter of Rule 33(d), 

because it is about what information AAI alleges Boeing misused and as 

such is squarely and solely within AAI’s possession. The content of AAI’s 

allegations is uniquely in the mind of AAI, and it is time for AAI to commit 

Case 2:11-cv-03577-RDP Document 237 Filed 08/05/16 Page 5 of 15
6 

itself to its theory;” Boeing’s Motion at 10—“[I]t is only within AAI’s 

capability to identify this information. Boeing cannot. Whether AAI 

contends that a particular piece of information in a particular document is 

proprietary is known only to AAI and is determined by numerous facts that 

are known only to AAI.”). 

8. AAI filed a Response to Boeing’s Motion on May 24, 2016, 

arguing that it has “complied with its requirements under Rule 33, including 

Rule 33(d)” (AAI’s Response at 8) and suggesting that Boeing’s 

protestations are disingenuous, given the level of specificity that 

accompanied AAI’s responses (AAI’s Response at 4—“Boeing’s protests 

that, after AAI has provided mountains of discovery in which data in 

specifically-identified documents has been listed by bates number and 

category of proprietary information (in the case of TBC documents also by 

narrative description), it cannot ascertain what is the PI data on which 

Plaintiffs’ contentions are based, are protests purely made up, for tactical 

purposes of harassment and implementing a scorched-earth approach to 

litigation.”). On June 3, 2016, Boeing filed its Reply, confirming that it only 

seeks to compel supplemental responses as to Appendix A (i.e., the 

Boeing documents) and emphasizing the heightened level of specificity that 

such responses should display. (Boeing’s Reply at 1—“Boeing’s Motion to 

Case 2:11-cv-03577-RDP Document 237 Filed 08/05/16 Page 6 of 15
7 

Compel, however, is not focused on AAI’s documents. Instead, Boeing 

seeks an answer to a central issue in this case—what specific data in 

Boeing’s documents does AAI contend is proprietary to AAI;” Boeing’s 

Reply at 5—“AAI’s response fails to address the heart of Boeing’s Motion to 

Compel—the alleged AAI proprietary information in Boeing’s pricing 

numbers . . . AAI must say with specificity what portions of particular 

Boeing documents contain AAI’s allegedly proprietary information.”). 

9. Since the completion of briefing, AAI has twice supplemented 

its response to Interrogatory #1, incorporating the document lists created to 

facilitate testimony on Boeing’s 30(b)(6) Topic 5 on June 23, 2016, as well 

as two expert reports on July 1, 2016. 

B. Disputed RFAs 

10. On January 29, 2016, Boeing served AAI with its fourth set of 

Requests for Admissions (“the RFAs”); this was the same day that AAI was 

served with Boeing’s Interrogatory #1, and, in fact, Interrogatory 2 from the 

same set of interrogatories concerned AAI’s RFA answers, requesting, “To 

the extent that you deny, in whole or in part, any of Boeing’s Fourth 

Requests for Admission, dated January 29, 2016, explain the basis for 

each such denial.” (Boeing’s Motion, Ex. 8). 

Case 2:11-cv-03577-RDP Document 237 Filed 08/05/16 Page 7 of 15
8 

11. AAI filed its initial RFA responses on March 3, 2016 (AAI’s 

Response, Ex. H), its first supplemental responses on March 28, 2016 

(AAI’s Response, Ex. J), and its second supplemental responses on April 

20, 2016 (AAI’s Response, Ex. L). 

12. Boeing’s Motion addresses AAI’s responses to RFAs 6, 7, 14, 

15, 16, and 20 (“the Disputed RFAs”), asking the undersigned to “find that 

AAI’s nonresponsive and argumentative answers to Requests for 

Admission Nos. 6, 14, 15, 16 and 20 are insufficient and either deem those 

Requests for Admission admitted or order AAI to serve amended 

responses.” (Boeing’s Motion at 2). In essence, Boeing’s Motion argues 

that AAI has failed to plainly admit or deny the Disputed RFAs—as required 

by FRCP 36—but, instead, has used its responses to dodge or qualify the 

core subject matter of the Disputed RFAs. (Boeing’s Motion at 1-2—

“Rather than admit or deny the requests as required by Federal Rule of 

Civil Procedure 36, AAI’s responses are stuffed with pages of argument 

about nonresponsive issues;” Boeing’s Motion at 13—“AAI’s Responses to 

RFAs 6, 7, 14, 15, 16, and 20 improperly ignore Boeing’s requests, distort 

the questions, fill page after page with irrelevant argument, and are well 

outside the bounds of acceptable RFA responses.”). 

Case 2:11-cv-03577-RDP Document 237 Filed 08/05/16 Page 8 of 15
9 

13. AAI’s Response pushes back on the Motion’s characterization 

of AAI’s responses, asserting that AAI fully denied the Disputed RFAs and 

explained its denials in accordance with Boeing’s interrogatory request. 

(AAI’s Response at 11—“AAI denied Boeing’s requests and gave reasons 

for its denials. Just because Boeing does not like AAI’s denials, and its 

explanations of them, does not mean that Boeing by motion can force AAI 

into giving a different answer. Indeed, the explanations that AAI included 

with its denials were requested by Boeing in Boeing’s Interrogatory 2. 

Besides the explanations that Boeing demanded, AAI has given the 

‘forthright, specific and unconditional’ denials to these RFAs as required 

under Rule 36.” (quoting Henry v. Champlain Enters., Inc., 212 F.R.D. 73, 

77 (N.D.N.Y. 2003))). Boeing’s Reply largely reiterates the arguments 

made by Boeing in the Motion. (Boeing’s Motion at 5-7). 

II. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 

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

conclusion that AAI has satisfied its responsive obligations as to (a) 

Interrogatory #1, by producing annotated records in accordance with FRCP 

33(d), and (b) the Disputed RFAs, by issuing specific denials in satisfaction 

of Rule 36(a)(4). However, to the extent that Pemco PI is not readily 

obvious from the face of the records contained in Appendix A (e.g., where 

Case 2:11-cv-03577-RDP Document 237 Filed 08/05/16 Page 9 of 15
10 

the identified records are not preceded by a “Pemco” cover sheet or where 

the subject spreadsheet tabs are not labeled “Pemco”) and/or from the 

descriptive PI details that accompany Appendix A, Boeing may request 

additional information from AAI, provided that it identifies the specific Bates 

numbers of the documents in question, represents in good faith that it is 

unable to discern the Pemco PI therein, and explains why the descriptive 

annotations provided by AAI are insufficient to assist it in the identification 

process. 

A. Interrogatory #1 

As noted above, FRCP 33(d) permits a party to produce business 

records in lieu of a traditional interrogatory response if (a) “the answer to an 

interrogatory may be determined by examining . . . [the] party’s business 

records,” and (b) “the burden of deriving or ascertaining the answer will be 

substantially the same for either party.” In order to properly utilize this 

responsive option, a party must “specify[] the records that must be 

reviewed, in sufficient detail to enable the interrogating party to locate and 

identify them as readily as the responding party could.” FRCP 33(d)(1). 

Here, AAI did just that, rightly determining that the circumstances 

surrounding Interrogatory #1 were ripe for the application of FRCP 33(d) 

and sufficiently satisfying its obligation under FRCP 33(d)(1) to prepare the 

Case 2:11-cv-03577-RDP Document 237 Filed 08/05/16 Page 10 of 15
11 

responsive records in such a manner that Boeing could identify the 

requested information therein. 

The primary thrust of Boeing’s Interrogatory #1 argument is that AAI 

has misutilized FRCP 33(d), because “the burden of deriving or 

ascertaining the answer” sought by Interrogatory #1 is not “substantially the 

same” for both parties, as Boeing is incapable of determining what 

information in the Appendix A document AAI considers to be PI. (Supra at ¶ 

7). However, this argument unfairly discounts the specificity with which AAI 

has identified and contextualized the responsive documents; indeed, as 

noted in its Response (AAI’s Response at 3-4) and as reflected in the 

Appendices themselves (Boeing’s Motion, Exs. 13-16), AAI identified the 

Boeing documents by specific Bates numbers; “divided the TBC documents 

by topically-related PI categories” (AAI’s Response at 3); and “then, for all 

such TBC documents, [it] listed 10 document elements, including a 

narrative ‘Type of Data’ field describing or identifying the content which AAI 

contends reflects Pemco PI” (AAI’s Response at 4). When married with 

Boeing’s own familiarity with its documents, the descriptive details provided 

by AAI should, in most instances, allow Boeing to identify the PI claim by 

AAI (and do so with a substantially similar burden as that that would be 

borne by AAI), rendering AAI’s annotations sufficiently specific under FRCP 

Case 2:11-cv-03577-RDP Document 237 Filed 08/05/16 Page 11 of 15
12 

33(d)(1). As such, AAI has satisfied its responsive obligations under Rule 

33, and Boeing’s Motion is due to be denied in that regard. 

B. Disputed RFAs 

Likewise, in regard to the Disputed RFAs, AAI has satisfied its 

responsive obligations under FRCP 36(a)(4), which states in relevant part, 

“If a matter is not admitted, the answer must specifically deny it or state in 

detail why the answering party cannot truthfully admit or deny it. A denial 

must fairly respond to the substance of the matter; and when good faith 

requires that a party qualify an answer or deny only a part of a matter, the 

answer must specify the part admitted and qualify or deny the rest.” 

(emphasis added). Indeed, AAI has unconditionally denied each of the 

Disputed RFAs (supra at ¶ 13) and that is exactly what the Rule requires: 

an up-down, yes-no response. The parties can (and, I’m sure, will) 

continue to quibble over whether the Disputed RFAs were unfairly framed 

by Boeing (AAI’s Response at 10) or improperly manipulated by AAI 

(Boeing’s Motion at 13-16), but the simple fact is that AAI has issued full 

denials of the same, choosing to be held to such answers for the remainder 

of this litigation. Accordingly, AAI has complied with FRCP 36(a)(4), and 

Boeing’s Motion in that regard is due to be dismissed. 

 

Case 2:11-cv-03577-RDP Document 237 Filed 08/05/16 Page 12 of 15
13 

C. Specific, Good-Faith Requests for Additional Information 

However, Boeing’s Motion is due to be granted to the extent that 

Boeing wishes to submit specific, good-faith requests to AAI for additional 

information regarding its Interrogatory #1 responses. A regimen of this 

nature was originally suggested by AAI (see Boeing’s Motion, Ex. 20 at 17), 

and it adequately recognizes both Boeing’s need for specific information 

and AAI’s continuing obligation to reasonably supplement its interrogatory 

response. (Boeing’s Motion, Ex. 20 at 17—“Again, the ball is in Boeing’s 

court, not the Plaintiffs’ court, to comply with Rule 33(d). If Boeing can still 

claim, in good faith with regard to specific documents out of those the 

Plaintiffs have identified by bates number, that it cannot (while in 

compliance with Rule 33(d)) read the information its interrogatory has 

sought from a specific document, then it is incumbent upon Boeing to 

identify to Plaintiffs by bates number and at least as much identification as 

Plaintiff’s provided to Boeing (e.g., Appendix A’s columns), the specific 

documents of which it complains, and the reasons why Boeing claims a 

review by its counsel and personnel cannot learn the answer to its 

interrogatory from such documents, particularly in light of Plaintiffs’ 

supplemental information provided here.”). That being said, such requests 

should be employed sparingly, only being issued when Boeing can 

Case 2:11-cv-03577-RDP Document 237 Filed 08/05/16 Page 13 of 15
14 

productively articulate the disconnect between AAI’s descriptive efforts and 

its own ability to identify the alleged PI. 

III. RECOMMENDATIONS 

For the reasons outlined above, the undersigned makes the following 

recommendations to the Court: 

 Boeing’s Motion should be DENIED to the extent that it 

requests unprompted supplementation from AAI of its 

Interrogatory #1 responses; 

 Boeing’s Motion should be DENIED to the extent that it 

challenges the sufficiency of AAI’s answers to the Disputed 

RFAs; and 

 Boeing’s Motion should be GRANTED to the extent that Boeing 

wishes to submit specific, good-faith requests to AAI for 

additional information regarding its Interrogatory #1 responses. 

Respectfully Submitted, 

s/ David J. Middlebrooks 

David J. Middlebrooks ASB- 8553-D58D 

OF COUNSEL: 

LEHR MIDDLEBROOKS VREELAND & THOMPSON, P.C. 

P.O. Box 11945 

Birmingham, Alabama 35202-1945 

(205) 326-3002 

Fax: (205) 326-3008 

Case 2:11-cv-03577-RDP Document 237 Filed 08/05/16 Page 14 of 15
15 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that on August 5, 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: 

Counsel for Alabama Aircraft Industries, Inc., Alabama Aircraft 

Industries, Inc. – Birmingham, and Pemco Aircraft Engineering Services, 

Inc. 

Counsel for The Boeing Company, Boeing Aerospace Operations, 

Inc. and Boeing Aerospace Support Center 

s/ David J. Middlebrooks 

OF COUNSEL 

528486 

Case 2:11-cv-03577-RDP Document 237 Filed 08/05/16 Page 15 of 15