United States v. Tetra Tech EC, Inc.

Background

This omnibus order addresses pending discovery disputes in several related cases involving Tetra Tech entities, the United States, relators, and other plaintiffs. Applying Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1), the court explained that discovery generally must concern nonprivileged information relevant to a claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case. The court also noted its authority under Rule 26(b)(2)(C) to limit discovery that is cumulative, duplicative, available from a less burdensome source, already obtainable, or outside the permitted scope.

Rulings on discovery disputes

- The Side One parties’ request to reconvene Tina Rolfe’s deposition for two additional hours was denied. The court found that speculation about whether Rolfe testified truthfully did not justify reopening the deposition and noted her extensive health issues. - The request to reproduce documents that Tetra Tech clawed back during or after George Chiu’s deposition, and to continue that deposition, was denied. The court found that Tetra Tech adequately supported its claims of attorney-client privilege and work-product protection. - The Side One parties’ request to compel Dan Batrack’s deposition was granted. The court found evidence that Batrack was personally involved in the relevant facts and likely had firsthand knowledge. The parties were directed to schedule the deposition promptly. - The request to compel amended interrogatory answers concerning Tetra Tech’s position about alleged fraudulent conduct by Justin Hubbard and Stephen Rolfe was denied. The court found no need to clarify the change in position and noted that the requesting parties had other opportunities to discover the underlying facts. - The request for temporary use of a Tetra Tech computer and login credentials to investigate its environmental-information database was denied. The court stated that Tetra Tech could not use at trial evidence it had not produced and warned that later-discovered production failures could result in sanctions, including case-terminating sanctions and professional-conduct sanctions against responsible lawyers. - The relators’ request for discovery concerning the fairness hearing on the settlement between the United States and Tetra Tech EC was denied. The court said that the False Claims Act did not provide for such discovery and that the fairness hearing had already occurred. The court stated that it would address fairness and allocation issues separately. - The Side One parties’ request to overrule privilege objections and instructions not to answer questions at Stephen Rolfe’s deposition was denied under Rules 26 and 37. - Five Point’s request to reconvene the deposition of its own Rule 30(b)(6) witness, Emile Haddad, was denied. - Regarding original chain-of-custody documents, the court directed the parties to conduct a limited inspection of samples that the United States had in storage at Hunters Point. The parties could update the court as warranted. - The request to compel Tetra Tech, Inc. to produce additional board-related materials was denied, based on its representation that it had produced all relevant, nonprivileged responsive documents. The court stated that Tetra Tech would be held to that representation. - Five Point’s request to compel additional insurance-policy documents and related communications was denied, based on Tetra Tech’s representations about its production and its commitment to supplement that production. - The court found that reopening Tetra Tech’s Rule 30(b)(6) depositions was not warranted. The request to exclude evidence or argument could be raised again in a motion before trial. - Five Point’s request to compel additional interrogatory discovery from Tetra Tech about the number of interrogatories permitted to Five Point and CP Development was denied for lack of good cause. - The corresponding request to compel further interrogatory responses from the United States was also denied. - Five Point’s request to compel production of an email clawed back during Andy Bolt’s deposition, and to reopen that deposition, was denied. The court found Tetra Tech’s representations sufficient to bring the email within the work-product doctrine, which protects materials prepared by investigators or agents for attorneys in anticipation of litigation. - Tetra Tech’s request to compel documents withheld by Five Point under its consulting agreement with Geosyntec Consultants, Inc. was denied. The court found Five Point’s representations sufficient to support work-product protection. - Tetra Tech’s request for additional interrogatory responses concerning Five Point’s damages claim was denied as moot because expert discovery had occurred and the adequacy of the damages evidence could be tested at trial. The United States’ identical request was denied for the same reasons. - Tetra Tech’s request to compel a further response to Interrogatory No. 18, concerning the individuals and entities connected to Five Point’s alleged economic relationships, was denied. The court found Five Point’s response sufficient. - Tetra Tech’s request for information concerning the facts supporting Lennar’s damages expert’s opinions was denied as moot. - The United States’ request for a protective order concerning deposition notices directed to former Assistant United States Attorney Philip Kearney, former Defense Criminal Investigative Service investigator George Wright, and former Nuclear Regulatory Commission investigator Jerome Bigoness was granted. The court found the depositions unnecessary, and they would not be taken. - Tetra Tech and the United States did not need to answer the 3,783 requests for admission served by Five Point to authenticate documents. The court expected the parties to resolve authentication issues before trial. - Tetra Tech and the United States’ motion for evidentiary and monetary sanctions based on CP Development’s alleged failure to appear at a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition was denied. The court found that the record did not establish a sanctionable failure by a party to appear at its own deposition. - A separate motion by Tetra Tech and the United States seeking evidence-preclusion and adverse-inference sanctions based on the failure to produce or reschedule four fact witnesses was also denied. The court noted that the witnesses were not employed by Five Point when the deposition notices were issued and found that sanctions were not established as appropriate under Rule 37(d). - The United States’ request for destruction of inadvertently produced presentence reports concerning Justin Hubbard and Steven Rolfe was granted. The parties and document vendors were ordered to destroy the reports, destroy documents containing notes or information about them, take reasonable steps to retrieve disclosed copies or information, and provide written confirmation and notice as required by the order.

Remaining expert issues and final direction

The court stated that additional letters concerning expert discovery would be addressed as warranted with the pending motions challenging expert testimony under Rule 702. Those requests were administratively terminated in the interim. The court ordered that discovery was closed and that no additional disputes would be entertained.

Classification

This is a procedural order. It resolves discovery, privilege, protective-order, sanctions, and related case-management issues without deciding the merits of the parties’ underlying claims.