Sparton Corp. v. United States
United States Court of Federal Claims
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION AND ORDER
DAMICH, Chief Judge.
Before the Court is Plaintiffs Motion to Compel Sufficient Answers to Requests for Admission and Production of Documents. Nine months after the close of fact discovery and just prior to the close of expert discovery, Plaintiff filed several requests for production of documents and several requests for admission. When Defendant objected to the requests or did not fully respond, Plaintiff filed its motion to compel. For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiffs motion is GRANTED-IN-PART and DENIED-IN-PART.
I. Background
Sparton Corporation (“Sparton”) filed this…
2Cases cited29 opinions
- G. L. Christian and Associates v. The United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1963
- United Coal Companies v. Powell Construction Company and Interstate Equipment Corporation and Bethlehem Steel CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1988
- United States of America Ex Rel. Willie Seals, Jr. v. Martin J. Wiman, Warden, Kilby Prison, Montgomery, AlabamaCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1962
- In Re the Regents of the University of CaliforniaCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1996
- G. L. Christian and Associates v. The United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1963
24 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by18 opinions
- United States v. O'KeefeDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2008
- Pass & Seymour, Inc. v. Hubbell Inc.District Court, N.D. New York · 2008
- Lakeland Partners, L.L.C. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2009
- Ag-Innovations, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2008
- Estate of Rubinstein v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2011
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.