UNI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURT

F OR THE DI STRI CT OF COL UMB I A

------------------------------------------------------- : UNI TED STATES OF AMERI CA : ex rel. HARRY B ARKO, : CASE NO. 1:05-CV-1276 : Plaintiff-Relator, : : v. : OPI NI ON AND ORDER : [ Resolving Doc. 241 ] : HAL L I B URTON COMPANY et al. , : : D efendants. : :

------------------------------------------------------- J AMES S. GW I

N, UNI T ED STATES DI STRI CT J UDGE: Plaintiff-Relator B arko asks the Court to stay further discovery , to ex tend scheduling order deadlines, to enter a p rotective order, a nd to g rant a renewed motion to compel. 1 / KB R opposes. 2 / T he parties have filed nearly fifty pag es of briefing and r equest that the Court rules within the day

. KB R’s mandamus petition is still pending b e fore the Court of Appeals. The Court’s earlier scheduling order 3 / will be revised, and final dates w ill be provided once the Court of Appeals rules on the petition. F or now, the d iscovery deadline is ex tended from March 30, 2015, to April 30, 2015. Ba rko’s most p ressing request is for the e ntry of a protective order prohibiting KB R f r o m conducting a deposition o f Derek B onenclark, scheduled for March 11 , 2 0 1 5 , i n S e a tt l e , W ashing ton. B arko states that lead c ounsel will be unavailable, that the deposition was not properly noticed, and

1 / Do c. 2 41

. 2 / Do c. 2 42

. 3 / Do c. 2 06

. 1that KB R has not com p l i e d w i th applicable regulations and subpoena requirements pursuant to

United States ex rel. Touhy v. Ragen

. 4 / B arko’s best argument is that the DCMA told KB R that KB R c ould interview B onenclark only after g iving notice to B arko. I t appears that KB R ig nored the D C M A a n d i nterviewed B onenclark w ithout g iving B arko su c h n o t i c e. KB R received permission to interview Mr. B onenclark on May 5 , 2014, which the DCMA “g ranted on the condition of notice to all parties in the litig ation.” 5 / KB R requested and conducted an interview with Mr. B onenclark pursuant to DOD Directive 5402.5. B arko argues that KB R’s conduct is improper and that he has been prejudiced as a result. K B R a r g u e s t h a t “ t h e D C M A c o u

n s e l ’s letter n otwithstanding , there is simply no requiremen t that notice [ of a

n interview] be provided

. . . .” 6 / KB R nex t argues that “the p arties f or whose benefit Touhy regulations ex ist – the Government and Mr. B onenclark – are aware that KB R did not p rovide B arko notice of its Touhyinterview, y e t still consent to the deposition.” 7 / KB R appears to concede that it did not comply with the ex p r ess condition the DCMA placed on Mr. B o nenclark’s pre-deposition interview; instead, KB R argu es that B arko has no standing to object to this lack of notice and that the Government seems not to care that notice w as not p rovided. KB R may be correct that no case or regulation requires notice of a Touhy interview, but the DCMA’s letter is clear in its terms that notice should be provided to all parties. The Court retains inhere n t p o w e r to manag e discovery

. B roadly speaking , Rule 30

4 / 3 4 0 U.S. 4 6 2 (1 95 1) . Mr. B o n en clark is in th e Un itedStates o n ly

un til March 1 1 , 2 0 1 5, an dw ill n o t retu rn un til Ju ly 2 0 1 5

. Mr. B o n en clark ’ s stay h as b een ex ten d ed to acco m m od ate th e d ep o sitio n , an d B ark o ’ s co un sel h as b een aw are o f th e sch edu ledd ep o sitio n sin ce Feb ru ary

2 3 , 2 0 1 5

. 5 / Do c 24 1

- 9 at 6 (em

p h asis ad d ed ). 6 / Do c. 2 42 at 2 1

. 7 / Id . at 5

- 6

. 2emphasiz es that p arties mus t be able to make a “fair ex amination of the deponent.” 8 / The Court is

concerned that KB R has received the unfair advantag e of conducting a pre-deposition interview in direct contravention of the terms under which that interview w as to occur. The Court is additionally

con c e r n e d that KB R’s ig noring DCMA’s e x press requirements will subject B onenclark to additional oblig ations to respond to d is c o very that would not have been needed if KB R had complied w ith DCMA’s conditions. The Court therefore orders that B arko b e g iven an opportunity to conduct a private interview of B onenclark before the deposition takes place. B onenclark must respond to questioning from B arko without the presence o f KB R. B onenclark c an have his attorney present. The interview will be no long er than 60 minutes or the leng th of time B o nenclark w as interviewed by KB R, whichever is long e r. The scope of B arko’s interview will be limited to the topics approved in the DCMA’s May 5, 2014, letter. I f B o nenclark submits to the interview, the Court w ill d e ny the motion for a protective order
to stop the d eposition. I f the DCMA or B onenclark refuse to g ive the interview, the Court w ill g r ant B arko’s motion for a protective order stopping B onenclark’s deposition. Under these c o n ditions, the Court will allow the deposition to g o f o rward. 9 / The interview will take place at least 6 hour s i n a d v a n ce of the deposition. I f Mr. B o nenclark’s DCMA c ounsel objects to such an interview, the Court will STAY the deposition pending B arko’ s o p p ortunity to

8 /S ee Fed . R. Civ . P . 3 0 (d )

. 9 / Reg ard l ess o f B ark o ’ s l ead co un sel’ s av ailab ility , Bark o ’ s oth er law y ers co u ld atten d th e d ep o sitio n in p erso n o r b y v id eo co n f

eren ce. Fu

rth erm ore, w ith o ut w ad i n g in to t h e n um ero u s t ech n icalities B ark o raises as to th e d ef icien cy o f th e d ep o sitio n n o tice, th e Co urt f in d s th at B ark o ’ s co u

n sel h ad ad eq u ate n o tice o f t h e d ep o sitio n an d f

in d s g o o d cau se f o r ab b rev iatedn otice p u

rsu an t to L o cal Ru le 3 0 .1

. 3conduct a brief pre-deposition interview to prepare for the deposition. I T I S SO ORDERED

Dated: March 9, 2015. s/ James S. Gwin J AMES S. GW I

N UNI TED STATES DI STRI CT J UDGE

4