Legal Opinion
Armour of America v. United States
United States Court of Federal Claims
Decided October 17, 2006No. 04-1731 CPublishedCited by 2 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION and ORDER
DAMICH, Chief Judge.
In this contract case between Armour of America (“AOA”) and the government, ArmorWorks intervened to protect its proprietary information and the Court issued a Temporary Protective Order pursuant to Rule 26(c) of the Rules of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims (“RCFC”).1 Now the Court must decide whether to allow the Temporary Protective Order to remain in place through pretrial discovery in order to protect the information designated as proprietary by Intervenor ArmorWorks or whether to engage in an item-by-item determination of which documents are…
2Cases cited17 opinions
- Parklane Hosiery Co. v. ShoreSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
- Seattle Times Co. v. RhinehartSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
- Michael D. Van Etten v. Bridgestone/Firestone, IncCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 2001
- Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1986
- Public Citizen Health Research Group v. Food and Drug AdministrationCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1983
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- United States v. SmithDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 2013
- Silver State Land LLC v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2020