ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS

OPINION BY ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE PAGE

ON APPELLANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY

Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company (LMA, appellant) asserted the claim 

underlying this appeal against the Air Force (Air Force, government) for allegedly 

excessive “over & above” work that resulted in greater costs and cumulative lack of 

productivity on a contract for upgrading C-5 Galaxy aircraft. The parties are engaged 

in discovery but have repeatedly come to the Board to settle disputes surrounding 

ongoing discovery issues. Appellant now moves to compel the Air Force to provide 

more complete responses to a set of interrogatories. This is not the first motion to 

compel that has been filed in this appeal but the Board is optimistic that this will be the 

final one and will guide the parties in working together to resolve any future discovery 

disputes. We grant appellant’s motion to compel. 

STATEMENT OF FACTS (SOF) FOR PURPOSES OF THE MOTION

1. We have already provided the background facts pertinent to this appeal in 

the Laches decision dated June 22, 2021. Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Co., ASBCA 

No. 62209, 21-1 BCA ¶ 37,891. Familiarity with that decision is assumed for 

Appeal of - )

)

Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company ) ASBCA No. 62209

)

Under Contract No. FA8625-07-C-6471 )

APPEARANCES FOR THE APPELLANT: Stephen J. McBrady, Esq.

J. Chris Haile, Esq.

Skye Mathieson, Esq.

John Nakoneczny, Esq.

Michelle D. Coleman, Esq.

 Crowell & Moring LLP

 Washington, DC

APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: Jeffrey P. Hildebrant, Esq.

 Air Force Deputy Chief Trial Attorney

Caryl A. Potter, III, Esq.

Lawrence M. Anderson, Esq.

Danielle A. Runyan, Esq.

 Trial Attorneys

 
2

purposes of the resolution of this motion to compel. Appellant filed its first motion to 

compel on April 21, 2021. That motion was granted by Board Order dated May 10, 

2021. Over the course of this appeal, discovery has become increasingly contentious. 

On June 3, 2021, appellant filed its second motion to compel discovery. That motion 

focused on a Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) audit report and audit related 

materials. That motion now appears to be moot in light of appellant receiving the 

requested audit report from DCAA; the Air Force indicated that there are no related 

documents in its possession.

2. On July 26, 2021, appellant filed a motion to compel further responses. 

Again, appellant is requesting the Board to compel the government to respond to its 

first set of interrogatories. Appellant alleges that the bulk of the government’s initial 

responses were non-responsive and inadequate. In particular, appellant alleges that the 

Air Force objected to the first interrogatory and then cross-referenced this response in 

25 of the 41 interrogatories served initially (app. mot. at 5). The government’s 

response to interrogatory one reads in pertinent part, “Respondent objects to this 

interrogatory on the basis that, in addition to being unduly burdensome to attempt to 

locate anyone who might be able to remember any information relevant to this 

interrogatory, it seeks information that could not possibly lead to the discovery of any 

relevant evidence . . . .” (app. mot. attach. 1 at 4). Appellant further alleges that 

responses to interrogatories 26, 27, 28, 29, 31, and 32 are “incomplete or evasive” 

(app. mot. at 15, 19-27). 

3. On August 13, 2021, the government responded in opposition to appellant’s 

motion arguing, “Each answer responds or objects to each discovery request in full 

accordance with Board Rule 8 and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)” (gov’t 

opp’n at 4). 

DECISION

I. Legal Standards

The Contract Disputes Act empowers the Board to “authorize depositions and 

discovery proceedings” during the course of appeals. 41 U.S.C. § 7105(f). Board 

Rule 8 further addresses discovery needs for cases before it; Rule 8(c)(3) provides that

“the Board may upon motion order [a] request for the production, inspection, and 

copying of any documents, electronic or otherwise, or objects, not privileged, which 

reasonably may lead to the discovery of admissible evidence . . . .”

Additionally, “[a]lthough not binding on the Board, we also look to the Federal 

Rules of Civil Procedure (FED. R. CIV. P.), and decisions addressing those rules, for 

guidance in discovery disputes.” Sand Point Servs., LLC, ASBCA Nos. 61819, 61820,

21-1 BCA ¶ 37,785 at 183,378 (citing Thai Hai, ASBCA No. 53375, 02-2 BCA ¶ 31, 
3

971 at 157,920; Ingalls Shipbuilding Div., Litton Sys., Inc., ASBCA No. 17177, 73-2 

BCA ¶ 10,205 at 48,096). FED. R. CIV. P. 26(b)(1) allows for broad discovery subject 

to certain limits; of particular consequence here are relevance and proportionality. 

While relevance is considered quite broadly, it is not without limits. Micro 

Motion Inc. v. Kane Steel Co., 894 F.2d 1318, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (citing Hickman 

v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 507 (1947)). The Board has previously held that, “It is well 

established that the concept of relevance in discovery proceedings is broader than that 

which governs admissibility of evidence at the trial.” Ingalls Shipbuilding Div., 

Litton Sys., Inc., 73-2 BCA ¶ 10,205 at 48,096. Further, “it matters not for the 

purposes of discovery which side’s theory of the case might ultimately be proven 

correct. What matters is that each side is entitled to pursue intelligible theories of the 

case and [the parties] cannot, by their sole insistence, declare evidence undiscoverable 

and irrelevant merely because it does not fit their own theory of the case.” Sentis Grp., 

Inc. v. Shell Oil Co., 763 F.3d 919, 926 (8th Cir. 2014). 

In addition to relevance, discovery can be limited by proportionality. This 

provision is “not [] treated as separate and discrete grounds to limit discovery so much 

as indicia of proper use of discovery mechanisms . . . .” 8 CHARLES ALAN WRIGHT,

ARTHUR R. MILLER & RICHARD L. MARCUS, FEDERAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

§ 2008.1 (3d ed. 2004). “Judges relatively frequently limit or forbid discovery when 

the cost and burden seem to outweigh the likely benefit in producing evidence . . . . 

[W]hen relevance has been demonstrated courts will scrutinize claims that the burden 

of producing requested information is disproportionate; and an unsupported burden 

objection is not a guaranteed protection against responding to discovery.” Id. The 

2015 Advisory Committee Notes to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 indicate that the 2015 

amendment which “emphasize[d] the importance of proportionality,” id., was not 

“intended to permit the opposing party to refuse discovery simply by making a 

boilerplate objection that it is not proportional. The parties and the court have a 

collective responsibility to consider the proportionality of all discovery and consider it 

in resolving discovery disputes.” Further, “In assessing proportionality, Rule 26(b) 

considers ‘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 the discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the burden or 

expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit.’” Corinthian-WBCM, 

JV, ASBCA No. 62379, 21-1 BCA ¶ 37,864 at 183,862 (citing FED. R. CIV. P. 

26(b)(1)). “[I]nformation is also proportional because it directly relates to [parties’] 

arguments.” Corinthian-WBCM, JV, 21-1 BCA ¶ 37,864 at 183,862. 
4

II. Appellant Has Shown that the Discovery Requests Are Relevant and the 

Government Has Failed to Show that the Requests Are Disproportionate 

The government’s objections to appellant’s motion to compel further responses 

focused on what the government views as insufficient facts for appellant to prove its 

claim. That is not the standard for determining the relevance of discovery. Appellant 

has been clear on its intent to utilize the measured mile approach. It is not for the 

government to decide, especially at the discovery stage, whether appellant can be 

successful on its method of proof. Appellant is free to pursue its theory of the case and 

propound discovery that it hopes to support this theory even if the evidence is 

ultimately inadmissible at the hearing stage. Ingalls Shipbuilding Div., Litton Sys., 

Inc., 73-2 BCA ¶ 10205 at 48,096. Additionally, measured mile is not a disfavored 

approach before the Board; appellant will still need to provide proof of its claim. The 

government’s recalcitrance to participate in discovery because it does not want to 

engage with appellant on its theory of the case is insufficient argument that the 

requested information is irrelevant and therefore undiscoverable. LMA has made 

compelling arguments that the information requested through these interrogatories is 

relevant to its claim and its use of the measured mile approach (see app. mot. at 8-9). 

Finally, the government’s boilerplate objections are insufficient to show these 

discovery requests are disproportionate. The government’s opposition to appellant’s 

motion focused on the relevancy of requested information so the Board is unable, at 

this time, to determine the veracity of the government’s generalized objection of its 

“unduly burdensome” discovery responses. The response to interrogatory one that is 

cross-referenced repeatedly in its other interrogatory responses, that it was “unduly 

burdensome to attempt to locate anyone who might be able to remember any 

information relevant to this interrogatory,” does not indicate to us that the government 

has given a good faith effort to respond to these interrogatories or consider what actual 

burden the government may encounter in trying to respond. (SOF ¶ 2) (emphasis 

added) 

CONCLUSION

Appellant’s motion to compel further responses is granted. The government is 

ordered to comply and respond to appellant’s first set of interrogatories, with the 

exception of interrogatories 37 and 38 which appellant indicates have been answered. 
5

The government may renew objections to discovery, as necessary, while keeping in 

mind the relevance and proportionality standards enumerated above. 

Dated: October 26, 2021

REBA PAGE

Administrative Judge

Armed Services Board

of Contract Appeals

I concur

RICHARD SHACKLEFORD

Administrative Judge

Acting Chairman

Armed Services Board

of Contract Appeals

I concur

OWEN C. WILSON

Administrative Judge

Vice Chairman

Armed Services Board

of Contract Appeals

I certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the Opinion and Decision of the 

Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals in ASBCA No. 62209, Appeal of 

Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company, rendered in conformance with the Board’s 

Charter.

Dated: October 27, 2021

PAULLA K. GATES-LEWIS

Recorder, Armed Services

Board of Contract Appeals