# In the United States Court of Federal Claims

NO. 13-499C; 13-500C; 13-800C; 16-1187 (Filed: December 17 , 2019) (Ref iled January 29, 2020) 1

THE HANOVER IN S URANCE COMPANY, et al.

, Plaintiff s

v.

THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Defendant

SEALED MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Tapp, Judge.

Plaintiff Hanover Insurance Company moves to strike a sealed notice filed by the United States relating to an alleged misrepresentation of witness

. For the reasons set forth below, t hat motion is DENIED

.

“No lying to the court. And if some misinformation has somehow seeped into a proceeding, correct it. Now.” 2

Background

Hanover Insurance Company (“Hanover”) seeks monetary damages from the United

States related to termination of a contract between the United States and Lodge Construction,

Inc. (“Lodge”). ( See Pl.’s Second Am. Compl. , ECF No. 122). From this rudimentary beginning, the current litigation encompasses multiple related monetary claims against the United States, counterclaims of fraud, discovery disputes, and now, witness conduct issues. A detailed

re citation of facts relating to the substantive claims and counterclaims is not essential to resolution of the dispute regarding witness

.

On Ma y 25, 2017, Lodge submitted its response to the United States’ Motion for Leave

to Amend to Assert an Affirmative Defense . ( Lodge’s Resp. Opp. Def’s Mot. for Leave (“ Lodge’s Opp. ”), ECF No. 84). In its Response, Lodge sought to preclude the United States from asserting the defense that Lodge had submitted fraud ulent claims: “At worst, with hindsight five years later, some of Lodge’s calculations of the time and cost impacts it suffered on the Project have been shown to contain unintentional, honest, understandable, and explainable errors that were made during the difficult task of quantifying a delay and inefficiency claim.” (Lodge’s Opp. at 1, ECF No. 84). More specifically, Hanover alleged that the United States’ Motion to

Amend should be denied because the United States failed to plead fraud with sufficient

1 This opinion has been reissued subject to the parties ’ redactions contained herein.

2 Phil Pattee, Nobody Lies to the Court, Not Even Your Client , Nev ada Law yer Magazine , June 2007, at 41

.5 process falters in that respect, the people are then justifie d in abandoning support for the system in favor of one where honesty is preeminent.

U

nited States v. Shaffer Equipment Co. , 11 F.3d 450, 457 (4 th Cir. 1993). This duty of candor is

“ required to protect the integrity of the entire judicial process. ” Id

. at 458. The credentials of witnesses, whether it be a medical doctor in a personal injury case who fails to disclose that her license to practice has been suspended, an engineer who misleadingly and falsely suggest s possession of an accreditation from an agency which does not exist, or a social worker who never graduated college in a state which mandates a possession of a degree, is not only fair game for opposing litigants but a matter for the court before which the witness appears.

Conclusion

F or these reasons, Hanover’s S ealed M otion to S trike is hereby DENIED

.

IT IS SO ORDERED

.

s/ David A. Tapp DAVID A. TAPP, Judge