In the United States Court of Federal Claims
NO. 13-499C; 13-500C; 13-800C; 16-1187
(Filed: December 17, 2019)
(Refiled January 29, 2020)
THE HANOVER INSURANCE COMPANY, et al., Plaintiffs
v.
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Defendant
SEALED MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
The case caption as the opinion prints it. The box the court draws around it is a rule rather than text, so it is not repeated here; every word is.
Tapp, Judge.
Plaintiff Hanover Insurance Company moves to strike a sealed notice filed by the United States relating to an alleged misrepresentation of witness . For the reasons set forth below, that motion is DENIED.
“No lying to the court. And if some misinformation has somehow seeped into a proceeding, correct it. Now.”
Background
Hanover Insurance Company (“Hanover”) seeks monetary damages from the United States related to termination of a contract between the United States and Lodge Construction, Inc. (“Lodge”). (See Pl.’s Second Am. Compl., ECF No. 122). From this rudimentary beginning, the current litigation encompasses multiple related monetary claims against the United States, counterclaims of fraud, discovery disputes, and now, witness conduct issues. A detailed recitation of facts relating to the substantive claims and counterclaims is not essential to resolution of the dispute regarding witness .
On May 25, 2017, Lodge submitted its response to the United States’ Motion for Leave to Amend to Assert an Affirmative Defense. (Lodge’s Resp. Opp. Def’s Mot. for Leave (“Lodge’s Opp.”), ECF No. 84). In its Response, Lodge sought to preclude the United States from asserting the defense that Lodge had submitted fraudulent claims: “At worst, with hindsight five years later, some of Lodge’s calculations of the time and cost impacts it suffered on the Project have been shown to contain unintentional, honest, understandable, and explainable errors that were made during the difficult task of quantifying a delay and inefficiency claim.” (Lodge’s Opp. at 1, ECF No. 84). More specifically, Hanover alleged that the United States’ Motion to Amend should be denied because the United States failed to plead fraud with sufficient process falters in that respect, the people are then justified in abandoning support for the system in favor of one where honesty is preeminent.
This opinion has been reissued subject to the parties’ redactions contained herein.
Phil Pattee, Nobody Lies to the Court, Not Even Your Client, Nevada Lawyer Magazine, June 2007, at 41.
United States v. Shaffer Equipment Co., 11 F.3d 450, 457 (4th Cir. 1993). This duty of candor is “required to protect the integrity of the entire judicial process.” Id. at 458. The credentials of witnesses, whether it be a medical doctor in a personal injury case who fails to disclose that her license to practice has been suspended, an engineer who misleadingly and falsely suggests possession of an accreditation from an agency which does not exist, or a social worker who never graduated college in a state which mandates a possession of a degree, is not only fair game for opposing litigants but a matter for the court before which the witness appears.
Conclusion
For these reasons, Hanover’s Sealed Motion to Strike is hereby DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ David A. Tapp
DAVID A. TAPP, Judge
This is a verbatim capture of the text layer of the court's own document in The Hanover Ins. Co. v. United States. Nothing is summarized or reworded, and the sections run in the order the court wrote them. Two things the page shows are not repeated in the text: the rule the court draws around its caption, and the pagination furniture (the page numbers and the electronic filing stamp printed across the top of each page).