Legal Opinion
R.C.O. Reforesting v. United States
United States Court of Federal Claims
Decided December 10, 1998No. 97-658CPublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER
MEROW, Judge.
This matter is before the court on plaintiffs motion to compel production of documents and defendant’s motion for a protective order. For the reasons stated below, defendant’s motion is granted. Plaintiffs motion is denied, but without prejudice to the right to renew the motion after further discovery and receipt of defendant’s submissions required by paragraph 2 of the April 7, 1997 Pretrial Order.
*407BACKGROUND
On April 16, 1997, RCO Reforesting (“RCO”) entered into a contract with the United States Forest Service for tree-planting services on the Eagle Lake Ranger District of…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Roviaro v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1957
- United States Department of Justice v. LandanoSupreme Court of the United States · 1993
- Maureen E. Coughlin and Frank S. Mistretta v. Harry Lee A/K/A Jefferson Parish SheriffCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1991
- Samuel Friedman v. Bache Halsey Stuart Shields, Inc. Samuel Friedman v. Bache Halsey Stuart Shields, Inc.Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1984
- In Re Sealed CaseCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1988
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Confidential Informant 59-05071 v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2012
- Stormans, Inc. v. SeleckyDistrict Court, W.D. Washington · 2008
- United States v. Optrex America, Inc.United States Court of International Trade · 2004
- United States v. Optrex America, Inc.United States Court of International Trade · 2004