Legal Opinion
Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation v. United States 09-844c &
United States Court of Federal Claims
Decided August 20, 2013No. 09-844C & 10-741CPublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Post judgment motions to modify and effectively negate a protective order; timeliness; Federal Circuit Rule 11(d); confidential commercial information; RCFC 26(e)(1)(G); cost-of-production data; competitive harm
OPINION AND ORDER
LETTOW, Judge.
A final post-trial decision and a judgment were entered in these consolidated cases on March 22, 2013. See Sikorsky Aircraft Corp. v. United States, 110 Fed.Cl. 210 (2013); Judgment of March 22, 2013, ECF No. 321. Appeals from that judgment are now pending before the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. See appeals docketed, Nos. 13-5096, 13-5099…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Griggs v. Provident Consumer Discount Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1982
- Yuba Natural Resources, Inc. v. The United States, Defendant/cross-AppellantCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1990
- United Technologies Corp. v. United States Department of DefenseCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 2010
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. United States Department of the Air ForceCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 2004
- In Re VIOLATION OF RULE 28(D)Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2011
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Amergen Energy Co. Ex Rel. Exelon Generation Co. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2014
- Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2015
- DNC Parks & Resorts at Yosemite, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2016
- Waverley View Investors, LLC v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2019