Building blocks are starting to look a little weaker
Boeing Ducks Sanctions Over Docs In $1.3B Deal Suit
By Kevin Penton
Law360 (February 7, 2020, 5:53 PM EST) -- An Alabama federal judge has rejected a bid by Alabama Aircraft Industries to sanction Boeing for allegedly being unforthcoming over certain documents in a suit over a $1.3 billion U.S. Air Force deal.
U.S. District Judge R. David Proctor rejected arguments by AAI that Boeing was misleading when responding to information requests on whether the documents it provided were a “true and complete set,” according to Thursday’s order.
While AAI shared correspondence with the court that demonstrated its “desire” to get Boeing to stipulate which documents were and were not part of a certain batch of data, the company did not show when it actually asked for it, Judge Proctor found.
“AAI has not presented any request which specifically requested this particular information, nor did it seek relief from the court requiring this particular information in a timely manner,” the order reads.
AAI launched its legal battle shortly after filing for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in 2011, alleging Boeing was directly responsible for its bankruptcy because it stole trade secrets and pulled strings with corrupt U.S. Air Force officials to cut AAI out of the $1.3 billion plane-servicing contract.
Boeing canceled their agreement to jointly bid on the contract for maintenance of the Air Force’s KC-135 fleet after the Air Force reduced the anticipated scope of the project, AAI said. The companies ended up bidding separately, and Boeing won the contract in May 2008, even though AAI's submission was about $15 million lower, according to the complaint.
AAI sought the sanctions against Boeing in January, arguing that the company had refused to be clear on what information it had either protected and sequestered or discarded after the deal was terminated, according to its motion.
Boeing responded several days later, arguing that it had disclosed all the requested information to AAI and that it had always been clear that some of the documents it produced had also been handed over in response to previous requests.
“Throughout this litigation, when AAI has asked for information, Boeing has provided it,” Boeing’s response said. “Boeing has also made clear throughout that it has produced the same sequestered documents at issue here both in response to early requests for production and again in a sequential bates numbered production, as a courtesy to AAI.”
Boeing also argued that the documents in question were produced in 2014, meaning AAI could have raised the issue years ago instead of waiting until the eve of trial.
“Boeing did nothing wrong in discovery, and its refusal to enter into an eleventh-hour stipulation about documents produced half a decade ago does not turn this dispute into an emergency,” Boeing wrote. “Simply put, there is no emergency here and no basis for sanctions.”
Michael Rediker, an attorney representing AAI, declined to comment on Friday.
Counsel for Boeing could not be reached for comment Friday.
AAI is represented by J. Michael Rediker, Joshua Lerner, R. Scott Williams, Peter J. Tepley, Meredith Jowers Lees and Rebecca A. Beers of Rumberger Kirk & Caldwell PC.
Boeing is represented by R. Thomas Warburton and J. Thomas Richie of Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP and Craig S. Primis, Erin C. Johnston, Tia Trout-Perez, Alexia Brancato and Kasdin Miller Mitchell of Kirkland & Ellis LLP.
The case is Alabama Aircraft Industries Inc. et al. v. Boeing Co. et al., case number 2:11-cv-03577, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama.
--Additional reporting by Emma Cueto and Sarah Martinson. Editing by Gemma Horowitz.
Update: This article has been updated to include a decline to comment from an attorney representing AAI.
AI
