Stovall v. United States
United States Court of Federal Claims
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER
ALLEGRA, Judge.
Pending before the court, in this contract case, is plaintiffs motion to compel the production of documents responsive to one of its requests for production. Defendant claims, inter alia, that the subject documents are privileged. Following an en camera, review of the documents in question, and for the reasons that follow, the court GRANTS, in *812part, and DENIES, in part, plaintiffs motion.
I
A brief recitation of the underlying facts sets the context for this decision.
On February 27, 1998, Michael Stovall (plaintiff), an African-American farmer in Alabama, and the Office of…
2Cases cited47 opinions
- Hickman v. TaylorSupreme Court of the United States · 1947
- Upjohn Co. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1981
- Coastal States Gas Corporation v. Department of EnergyCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1980
- Tax Analysts v. Internal Revenue ServiceCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1997
- Swidler & Berlin v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1998
42 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Jicarilla Apache Nation v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2009
- Salem Financial, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2012
- Stovall v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2009
- North Dakota v. United StatesDistrict Court, D. North Dakota · 2014
- Barrett v. WagenbrennerOhio Court of Appeals · 2025
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.