UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
_______________________________
)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Civil Action No. 08-961 (RWR)
)
HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL, INC., )
)
Defendant. )
_______________________________)
MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER
The government filed a complaint against defendant Honeywell
International, Inc., alleging violations of the False Claims Act
(“FCA”), 31 U.S.C. §§ 3729-33, as well as a common law unjust
enrichment claim in connection with the sale of Zylon body armor
shields. The government moved to stay discovery pending
resolution of partial summary judgment cross motions in two
pending related cases -- United States ex rel. Westrick v. Second
Chance Body Armor, Inc., Civil Action No. 04-0280 (RWR), and
United States v. Toyobo Co. Ltd., Civil Action No. 07-1144 (RWR)
-- claiming that the resolution will narrow issues and simplify
discovery in this case. Because the government has not carried
its burden to demonstrate the efficiencies and benefits of a
stay, the motion will be denied.
- 2 -
BACKGROUND
Beginning in 2004, the government brought claims under the
FCA, 31 U.S.C. § 3729, against manufacturers and retailers
involved in producing bulletproof vests that contained some form
of Zylon. This case involves specific claims filed against
Honeywell in 2008 and remains in the pretrial stage. The
discovery process has been a challenging one. Although the case
is nearly five years old, access to documents and individuals has
been limited, and “much discovery remains to be conducted.”
Pl.’s Mem., Ex. 7.1 As a result, the parties have asked for
extensions of time to complete discovery on numerous occasions.
1
Discovery difficulties were revealed at the July 29, 2011
initial scheduling conference and are detailed in the exhibits
included in the briefs filed in connection with this motion. See
Pl.’s Mem. of P. & A. in Supp. of a Stay of Discovery (“Pl.’s
Mem.”), Ex. 5 (“[W]e have been requesting dates for the following
witnesses for some time, in some cases for years[.]”); Def.’s
Opp’n to the Pl.’s Mot. to Stay Discovery (“Def.’s Opp’n”), Ex. 1
(“Honeywell still needs unspecified time to review the United
States’ production from [months ago] . . . [and] the United
States has not completed the production of documents in response
to Honeywell’s document requests.”); id., Ex. 6 (discussing
challenges in an e-mail exchange); id., Ex. 7 (demanding
documents from Honeywell); id., Ex. 14 (responding to accusations
that Honeywell refused to take re-depositions of government
witnesses); id., Ex. 15 (“Honeywell has been raising discovery
issues in this case for years and raised a number of issues on
various occasions since the hearing on July 29, 2011.”); Pl.’s
Reply to Honeywell’s Opp’n (“Pl.’s Reply”), Ex. 2 (“Despite the
passage of over four months, Honeywell has yet to provide a date
for Mr. Ryan’s deposition because he has been traveling
abroad.”); id., Ex. 2 (“Yet, to date, Honeywell has refused to
continue the depositions of these witnesses.”); Def.’s Opp’n at
22 (“Honeywell has not deposed a Government witness in this case
since August 2010.”).
- 3 -
See Docket Entries 41, 64, 67, 70, and 71; see also Pl.’s Mem.,
Ex. 6. The litigation in the related cases, though, is now in
the summary judgment phase.
The government argues that resolution of pending partial
summary judgment motions in the related cases will “likely
simplify discovery and narrow the factual and legal issues[,]” as
well as “lessen the burden of active discovery on witnesses and
the Court” in this case. Pl.’s Mem. at 1. The government notes
that Honeywell and the defendants in the related cases have
requested the same sets of documents and deposed the same
government witnesses, and all of the cases concern liability
under the FCA. Id. at 11-13.
In opposition, Honeywell argues that the government has
offered no specifics showing how the requested stay would benefit
this case, the stay would prejudice Honeywell, Honeywell will not
be bound by the resolution of the pending motions in the related
cases because it is not a party in the related cases, and the
related cases concern Zylon vests made out of Zylon fabric while
this case concerns the Z Shield made out of laminated Zylon.
Def.’s Opp’n at 12-13.
DISCUSSION
“It has long been recognized that trial courts are vested
with broad discretion to manage the conduct of discovery.”
Chavous v. Dist. of Columbia Fin. Responsibility & Mgmt.
- 4 -
Assistance Auth., 201 F.R.D. 1, 2 (D.D.C. 2001) (citing Brennan
v. Int’l Bhd. of Teamsters, 494 F.2d 1092, 1100 (D.C. Cir.
1974)); see also Edmond v. U.S. Postal Serv. Gen. Counsel, 949
F.2d 415, 425 (D.C. Cir. 1991). In particular, “the decision
whether to stay discovery is committed to the sound discretion of
the district court judge.” White v. Fraternal Order of Police,
909 F.2d 512, 517 (D.C. Cir. 1990) (citations omitted); see also
GFL Advantage Fund, Ltd. v. Colkitt, 216 F.R.D. 189, 193 (D.D.C.
2003) (citing Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254-55 (1936)).
“A court deciding a contested motion to stay ‘must weigh
competing interests and maintain an even balance.’” Bridgeport
Hosp. v. Sebelius, Civil Action No. 09-1344 (RWR), 2011 WL
862250, at *1 (D.D.C. Mar. 10, 2011) (quoting Landis, 299 U.S. at
254-55).
“‘[A] trial court may, with propriety, find it is efficient
for its own docket and the fairest course for the parties to
enter a stay of an action before it, pending resolution of
independent proceedings which bear upon the case.’” IBT/HERE
Employee Representatives’ Council v. Gate Gourmet Div. Ams., 402
F. Supp. 2d 289, 292 (D.D.C. 2005) (quoting Leyva v. Certified
Grocers of Cal., Ltd., 593 F.2d 857, 863-64 (9th Cir. 1979)). On
the other hand, “[o]nly in rare circumstances will a litigant in
one cause be compelled to stand aside while a litigant in another
settles the rule of law that will define the rights of both.”
- 5 -
Landis, 299 U.S. at 255. “[A] stay of the proceedings in one
case is justifiable . . . [when it] would settle some outstanding
issues and simplify others.” Bridgeport Hosp., Civil Action No.
09-1344 (RWR), 2011 WL 862250, at *1.
In order to prevail in a motion to stay, “[t]he proponent of
a stay bears the burden of establishing its need.” Clinton v.
Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 708 (1997) (citations omitted); see also
People with AIDs Health Group v. Burroughs Wellcome Co., Civil
Action No. 91-0574 (JGP), 1991 WL 221179, at *1 (D.D.C. Oct. 11,
1991). The movant “must make out a clear case of hardship or
inequity in being required to go forward, if there is even a fair
possibility that the stay for which he prays will work damage to
some one else.” Landis, 299 U.S. at 255.
The government broadly asserts that there is substantial
overlap in legal and factual issues between this case and the
related cases, and that resolution of the pending dispositive
motions in the related cases will simplify discovery and narrow
the issues here. Pl.’s Mem. at 1, 11. However, the government
for the most part does not specify what questions of fact or law
that the dispositive motions raise, or provide any analysis of
how resolution of each question one way or the other would
simplify discovery or narrow issues in this case, or state how
Honeywell would be bound by resolution of an issue in a case to
which it is not a party. Not until it filed its reply brief did
- 6 -
the government drop in one lone one-sentence footnote the claim
that “if the Court grants the United States’ partial summary
judgment motion on falsity, this may negate Honeywell’s need to
re-depose all of the key Government researchers[.]” Pl.’s Reply
at 4 n.6. This speculation was unaccompanied by reasoning,
analysis, or supporting authority, and was offered only after
Honeywell rightly complained that the government spoke in
generalities without concrete details about how resolution of the
issues in the related cases will streamline matters here. Def.’s
Opp’n at 13.
Neither party argues that the pending partial summary
judgment motions in the related cases will be dispositive of all
issues in this case. Cf. Chavous, 201 F.R.D. at 3 (“[A] stay of
discovery . . . ‘is rarely appropriate when the pending motion
will not dispose of the entire case[.]’” (quoting Keystone Coke
Co. v. Pasquale, No. 97-6074, 1999 WL 46622, at *1 (E.D. Pa. Jan.
7, 1999))). Nor is Honeywell a party in the related cases that
would be bound by the outcome of the pending motions there.
Taylor v. Sturgell, 553 U.S. 880, 884 (2008) (“‘[O]ne is not
bound by a judgment in personam in a litigation in which he is
not designated as a party or to which he has not been made a
party by service of process.’” (quoting Hansberry v. Lee, 311
U.S. 32, 40 (1940))); Urban Health Care Coal. v. Sebelius, 853 F.
Supp. 2d 101, 109-10 (D.D.C. 2012).
- 7 -
It may well be that common facts and legal issues are shared
in these Zylon cases. To recite them does not alone establish
the fairness or need for halting a defendant’s right to discovery
in a case already hobbled by a history of discovery difficulties.
Nor has the government met its burden to “make out a clear
case of hardship or inequity in being required to go forward[.]”
Landis, 299 U.S. at 255. The only hardship the government
suggests is the time it will take for its witnesses to sit for
depositions. Pl.’s Mem. at 12-13; Pl.’s Reply at 4. However,
any benefit from delaying depositions (and re-depositions) of
government witnesses where the government has failed to
demonstrate that the depositions will ultimately be unnecessary
is outweighed by the prejudice to Honeywell in its right to
proceed to prepare its defense.
CONCLUSION AND ORDER
The government has not met its burden of demonstrating how
resolution of the pending motions for summary judgment in the
related cases will foster efficiency or conserve resources for
the parties and the court in this case. Honeywell has been
subject to ongoing litigation in a case that the government chose
to file. The government has made no showing that the benefits of
a discovery stay would outweigh the prejudice to Honeywell in
preparing its defense. Therefore, it is hereby
- 8 -
ORDERED that the government’s motion [72] to stay discovery
be, and hereby is, DENIED.
SIGNED this 9th day of December, 2013.
/s/
RICHARD W. ROBERTS
Chief Judge