Not a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

United States ex rel. Burroughs v. DeNardi Corp.

United States District Court for the Southern District of California

February 20, 1996, Decided ; February 20, 1996, FILED

Civil No. 94-0212-GT(LSP)

Opinion

 [*681]  ORDER REGARDING DEFENDANT DeNARDI CORPORATION'S MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS (90-1) AND DENYING MOTION FOR SANCTIONS (90-2)

On November 14, 1995, defendant DeNardi Corp., DeNardi Equip. Co., Inc., Harold DeNardi, Robert Wood, Jr. and Rodney Furuya (hereafter defendants or "DeNardi") moved this court to compel plaintiff George Burroughs (hereafter plaintiff or "Burroughs") to produce certain documents which Burroughs claimed were privileged. Robert S. Brewer, Jr., Gail D. Zirkelbach and Ross H. Hyslop of the law firm McKenna & Cuneo appeared on behalf of DeNardi. Lynne R. Lasry of the law firm Procopio, Cory, Hargreaves & Savitch appeared on behalf of defendant Philip G. Thorpe. Michael Wilson appeared on behalf of defendant American Bureau of Shipping. Philip Stillman of the law firm Flynn, Sheridan & Tabb appeared on behalf of plaintiff George Burroughs. After the hearing on DeNardi's Motion, the court continued the matter to December 13, 1995, at which time further oral argument was received. Thereafter, the court requested  [*682]  supplemental briefing from plaintiff and defendants (as a group). The supplemental briefing was received [**3]  by the court on November 28, 1995, December 20, 1995 and January 2, 1996. After January 2, 1996, the court took the matter under submission. The court having reviewed the moving, opposition and supplemental papers of the parties and the authorities cited therein, HEREBY ORDERS:

I OVERVIEW

This case arises under the False Claims Act, 31 USC § 3729 et. seq. Burroughs alleges that defendants engaged in fraud against the U.S. Government by making inflated claims for payment on various government contracts.

On August 8, 1995, DeNardi served on plaintiff its First Request for Production of Documents. Plaintiff responded by producing a privilege log, dated September 14, 1995. The privilege log contained entries for the documents that are the subject of this motion:

Read The Full CaseNot a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.

167 F.R.D. 680 *; 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15586 **

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ex rel., GEORGE BURROUGHS, Plaintiff, v. DeNARDI CORPORATION, et al., Defendants.

Disposition:  [**1]  Defendants' Motion for Sanctions denied.

CORE TERMS

documents, disclosure, work-product, communications, intervene, attorney-client, discovery, asserts, immunity, waived, investigatory file, law enforcement, mental impressions, joint defense, discoverable, preparation, memorandum, production of documents, common interest, False Claims Act, opinion-work, protections

Evidence, Privileges, Attorney-Client Privilege, Scope, General Overview, Waiver, Criminal Law & Procedure, Commencement of Criminal Proceedings, Grand Juries, Attorney-Client Privilege, Labor & Employment Law, False Claims Act, Scope & Definitions, Qui Tam Actions, Civil Procedure, Privileged Communications, Work Product Doctrine, Discovery & Disclosure, Discovery, Methods of Discovery, Inspection & Production Requests, Opinion Work Product, Waiver of Protections, Wrongful Termination, Whistleblower Protection Act, Government Privileges, Official Information Privilege, Investigative Files Privilege, Procedural Matters