A discovery order in a Washington federal patent dispute is narrowing the scope of financial and operational information The Boeing Co. must produce in litigation brought by Wilson Aerospace LLC over tools used on NASA’s Space Launch System program. The court permitted targeted discovery tied to the specific device at issue while rejecting broader requests for more than a decade of materials about program delays and their consequences. The ruling also addresses ongoing disputes about the completeness of Boeing’s discovery responses and the proper scope of document searches, as Boeing’s latest motion to dismiss remains pending.
The Patent Dispute and the SLS Tool at Issue
Wilson Aerospace filed suit in 2023 alleging Boeing misappropriated patented technology relating to a device used to tighten nuts on tubes connecting engines to NASA’s Space Launch System. According to the complaint, the patented design concerned a tool described as a self-reacting torque kit, and Wilson Aerospace alleges Boeing used that design to develop a generic alternative. The allegations are tied to a mission described as seeking to carry spacecraft, crew, and heavy cargo to the moon.
The parties have repeatedly clashed over discovery, with Wilson Aerospace asserting Boeing has withheld documents and failed to disclose witnesses with relevant knowledge, and Boeing characterizing the requests as excessively expansive. The record also reflects disputes stemming from documents Wilson Aerospace inadvertently shared with Boeing during the litigation. Boeing has pursued dismissal on multiple occasions, including a motion to dismiss filed Aug. 19; the court had not yet ruled on that motion as of the latest developments described in the docket activity referenced by the parties.
Judge Peterson’s Proportionality Ruling on Financial and Operational Discovery
U.S. Magistrate Judge Michelle L. Peterson issued an order Friday following oral argument the prior day, directing Boeing to produce some additional information while declining to require sweeping disclosures about the broader Space Launch System program. Wilson Aerospace had sought more than a decade of documents and communications concerning the financial and operational consequences of delays in the program. Judge Peterson concluded Wilson Aerospace did not justify production on that scale beyond materials tied to the self-reacting torque kit tool at the center of the case, and determined that even if some of the requested information were relevant, the breadth of the request was not proportional to the needs of the case.
The order also rejected Wilson Aerospace’s request to require Boeing to expand its search for responsive materials to nearly a dozen additional people. At the same time, Judge Peterson required Boeing to provide additional materials identifying all executives and senior managers responsible for overseeing the financial performance of Boeing’s Space Launch System contract and procurements related to the disputed tools. The order further required production of additional monthly reports through June 2023 and various presentations related to the tool procurements, reflecting a tailored approach designed to connect financial discovery to the specific procurements and oversight functions implicated by the claims.
Ongoing Discovery Disputes: Custodians, Interrogatories, and Depositions
Judge Peterson’s order addressed competing assertions about the adequacy of Boeing’s discovery responses. Wilson Aerospace argued Boeing failed to comply with discovery obligations concerning the custodial information associated with certain produced documents. The court rejected that contention, indicating the existing production did not warrant the broader remedy Wilson Aerospace sought on that issue. However, the order required Boeing to identify all persons who had access to certain data referenced in a pair of interrogatories after Wilson Aerospace contended Boeing’s responses were incomplete.
The ruling fits within a procedural history marked by repeated, contested requests to broaden discovery. In early August, Judge Peterson allowed Wilson Aerospace to conduct more depositions of Boeing managers but denied broader requests for financial information and other documents. Later in August, the judge denied Wilson Aerospace’s request for additional depositions. Boeing’s litigation posture has also included multiple attempts to end the case at the pleadings stage, with its most recent motion to dismiss, filed Aug. 19, still awaiting a decision. Boeing is represented by McGuireWoods LLP and Wilson Aerospace is represented by Susman Godfrey LLP, according to filings identifying counsel.
Implications for Case Management and Next Steps in the Western District of Washington
The latest discovery order clarifies that the court will require production that is directly connected to the alleged infringement and the procurement of the disputed tools, while limiting requests that seek to convert a patent dispute into a broad inquiry into Space Launch System program performance over many years. By compelling identification of executives and senior managers responsible for contract financial performance and tool-related procurements, along with additional monthly reports through June 2023 and procurement-related presentations, the court signaled that oversight and reporting structures may remain relevant when tied to the specific items in dispute.
The case remains pending in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington as Wilson Aerospace LLC v. The Boeing Co., No. 2:23-cv-00847. With Boeing’s Aug. 19 motion to dismiss still unresolved, the schedule and scope of further discovery will likely depend on both the district court’s disposition of that motion and continued compliance with the magistrate judge’s tailored directives. Although the parties did not immediately provide public comment on the order, the pattern of prior discovery disputes suggests further disagreements may be addressed through additional motion practice as the case proceeds.
