This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 09/10/2021 at 11:25:12 (UTC).

SKY LIFT AERONAUTICS, LLC VS LOCKHEED MARTIN CORP., ET AL

Case Summary

On 02/26/2018 SKY LIFT AERONAUTICS, LLC filed a Property - Other Property Fraud lawsuit against LOCKHEED MARTIN CORP . This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Santa Monica Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is MITCHELL L. BECKLOFF. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****8899

  • Filing Date:

    02/26/2018

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Property - Other Property Fraud

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

MITCHELL L. BECKLOFF

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs and Cross Defendants

SKY LIFT AERONAUTICS LLC

MILLENNIUM AIRSHIP INC. A WASHINGTON COR

MERGED ENTERGY SOLUTIONS LLC

SMITH R. MICHAEL

Defendants

LOCKHEED MARTIN CORPORATION

HYBRID ENTERPRISES LLC

BINNS ROBERT

KORN/FERRY INTERNATIONAL INC.

Cross Plaintiff and Defendant

KORN/FERRY INTERNATIONAL INC.

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Cross Defendant Attorneys

BENDEL JASON ROBERT

BENDEL JASON R.

DAVID WIX

TARPEY DANIEL W.

Defendant and Cross Plaintiff Attorneys

EVERSHEDS SUTHERLAND US LLP

HOLMER ANDREW JOHN

GOO VALERIE MEILING

LY JOHN K

RAFFERTY SHAWN

CONKLE JOHN ALLAN

CONKLE KREMER & ENGEL

CROWELL & MORNING LLP

EVERSHEDS SUTHERLAND (US) LLP

LIANG JASON L

LY JOHN K.

CONKLE JOHN A.

 

Court Documents

Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

7/20/2021: Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

Notice - NOTICE OF DISASSOCIATION OF COUNSEL

7/20/2021: Notice - NOTICE OF DISASSOCIATION OF COUNSEL

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON EX PARTE APPLICATION UNOPPOSED EX PARTE APPLICATIO...)

7/19/2021: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON EX PARTE APPLICATION UNOPPOSED EX PARTE APPLICATIO...)

Ex Parte Application - EX PARTE APPLICATION UNOPPOSED EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL, FINAL STATUS CONFERENCE, AND RELATED PRETRIAL DATES AND DEADLINES AND TO SPECIALLY SET AND CONSOLIDATE HEA

7/16/2021: Ex Parte Application - EX PARTE APPLICATION UNOPPOSED EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL, FINAL STATUS CONFERENCE, AND RELATED PRETRIAL DATES AND DEADLINES AND TO SPECIALLY SET AND CONSOLIDATE HEA

Declaration in Support of Ex Parte Application

7/16/2021: Declaration in Support of Ex Parte Application

Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

7/15/2021: Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

Notice - NOTICE OF APPEARANCE AS COUNSEL

7/15/2021: Notice - NOTICE OF APPEARANCE AS COUNSEL

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY (NOT "FURTHER DISCOVERY...)

5/26/2021: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY (NOT "FURTHER DISCOVERY...)

Reply - REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DEEM THE TRUTH OF MATTERS SPECIFIED IN REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION, SET ONE ADMITTED

5/19/2021: Reply - REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DEEM THE TRUTH OF MATTERS SPECIFIED IN REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION, SET ONE ADMITTED

Reply - REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO FROM INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE (BINNS)

5/19/2021: Reply - REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO FROM INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE (BINNS)

Reply - REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE (BINNS)

5/19/2021: Reply - REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE (BINNS)

Reply - REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE (HYBRID)

5/19/2021: Reply - REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE (HYBRID)

Reply - REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DEEM THE TRUTH OF MATTERS SPECIFIED IN REQUEST FOR ADMISSION, SET TWO ADMITTED (LOCKHEED)

5/19/2021: Reply - REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DEEM THE TRUTH OF MATTERS SPECIFIED IN REQUEST FOR ADMISSION, SET TWO ADMITTED (LOCKHEED)

Reply - REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE (HYBRID)

5/19/2021: Reply - REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE (HYBRID)

Reply - REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DEEM THE TRUTH OF MATTERS SPECIFIED IN REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS, SET ONE (HYBRID)

5/19/2021: Reply - REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DEEM THE TRUTH OF MATTERS SPECIFIED IN REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS, SET ONE (HYBRID)

Reply - REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET TWO (LOCKHEED)

5/19/2021: Reply - REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET TWO (LOCKHEED)

Supplemental Declaration - SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF URI NIV IN SUPPORT OF REPLY BRIEFING RE DEFENDANT LOCKHEED MARTIN CORP., ROBERT BINNS, AND HYBRID ENTERPRISES, LLC'S MOTIONS TO COMPEL AND MOTION

5/19/2021: Supplemental Declaration - SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF URI NIV IN SUPPORT OF REPLY BRIEFING RE DEFENDANT LOCKHEED MARTIN CORP., ROBERT BINNS, AND HYBRID ENTERPRISES, LLC'S MOTIONS TO COMPEL AND MOTION

Declaration - DECLARATION DECLARATION OF DAVID WIX IN SUPPORT OF SKY LIFT AERONAUTICS, LLC'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT LOCKHEED MARTIN CORPORATION'S MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES,

5/10/2021: Declaration - DECLARATION DECLARATION OF DAVID WIX IN SUPPORT OF SKY LIFT AERONAUTICS, LLC'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT LOCKHEED MARTIN CORPORATION'S MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES,

171 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 09/19/2022
  • Hearing09/19/2022 at 09:30 AM in Department M at 1725 Main Street, Santa Monica, CA 90401; Jury Trial

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/12/2022
  • Hearing09/12/2022 at 09:00 AM in Department M at 1725 Main Street, Santa Monica, CA 90401; Final Status Conference

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/14/2021
  • Hearing09/14/2021 at 2:00 PM in Department M at 1725 Main Street, Santa Monica, CA 90401; Informal Discovery Conference (IDC)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/20/2021
  • DocketNOTICE OF DISASSOCIATION OF COUNSEL; Filed by ROBERT BINNS (Defendant); HYBRID ENTERPRISES, LLC (Defendant); LOCKHEED MARTIN CORPORATION (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/20/2021
  • DocketProof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by ROBERT BINNS (Defendant); HYBRID ENTERPRISES, LLC (Defendant); LOCKHEED MARTIN CORPORATION (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/19/2021
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department M; Hearing on Ex Parte Application (Unopposed Ex Parte Application to Continue Trial, Final Status Conference, and Related Pretrial Dates and Deadlines and to Specially Set and Consolidate Hearings on Defendants' Motions for Summary Judgment; Memorandum of Points and Authorities) - Held - Motion Granted

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/19/2021
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Hearing on Ex Parte Application Unopposed Ex Parte Applicatio...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/16/2021
  • DocketDeclaration in Support of Ex Parte Application; Filed by MILLENNIUM AIRSHIP INC., A WASHINGTON COR (Plaintiff); SKY LIFT AERONAUTICS, LLC (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/16/2021
  • DocketEx Parte Application (Unopposed Ex Parte Application to Continue Trial, Final Status Conference, and Related Pretrial Dates and Deadlines and to Specially Set and Consolidate Hearings on Defendants' Motions for Summary Judgment; Memorandum of Points and Authorities); Filed by MILLENNIUM AIRSHIP INC., A WASHINGTON COR (Plaintiff); SKY LIFT AERONAUTICS, LLC (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/15/2021
  • DocketNOTICE OF APPEARANCE AS COUNSEL; Filed by ROBERT BINNS (Defendant); HYBRID ENTERPRISES, LLC (Defendant); LOCKHEED MARTIN CORPORATION (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
265 More Docket Entries
  • 03/23/2018
  • DocketProof-Service/Summons; Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/23/2018
  • DocketProof-Service/Summons; Filed by SKY LIFT AERONAUTICS, LLC (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/16/2018
  • DocketProof-Service/Summons; Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/16/2018
  • DocketProof-Service/Summons; Filed by SKY LIFT AERONAUTICS, LLC (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/16/2018
  • DocketProof-Service/Summons; Filed by SKY LIFT AERONAUTICS, LLC (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/26/2018
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/26/2018
  • DocketSummons; Filed by Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/26/2018
  • DocketSummons Filed; Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/26/2018
  • DocketComplaint Filed

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/26/2018
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by SKY LIFT AERONAUTICS, LLC (Plaintiff); MILLENNIUM AIRSHIP INC., A WASHINGTON COR (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: SC128899 Hearing Date: January 7, 2022 Dept: M

CASE NAME: Sky Lift Aeronautics, LLC v. Lockheed Martin Corp., et al.

CASE NUMBER: SC128899

MOTION: Motion to Compel Deposition Testimony of Michael Smith; Motion to Compel Deposition of Plaintiff Sky Lift's Person Most Knowledgeable (COMBINED)

HEARING DATE: 01/07/2022

Background

On December 14, 2021, Defendant Lockheed Martin Corporation (“LMC”) filed this motion to compel the deposition of Michael Smith as well as the motion to compel the deposition of Plaintiff Sky Lift's Person Most Knowledgeable.

Legal Standard

“If, after service of a deposition notice, a party to the action or an officer, director, managing agent, or employee of a party. . . without having served a valid objection under Section 2025.410, fails to appear for examination. . . the party giving the notice may move for an order compelling the deponent's attendance and testimony . . .. (Code Civ. Proc., 2025.450(a).) A motion to compel the deponent’s attendance and testimony must include a meet and confer declaration or when the deponent fails to appear “a declaration stating that the petitioner has contacted the deponent to inquire about the nonappearance” and “specific facts showing good cause justifying the production for inspection of any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing described in the deposition notice.” (Code Civ. Proc., 2025.450(b).)

ANALYSIS

As an initial matter, the Court notes that Defendant’s declaration in support of this motion fails to include a statement that “the petitioner has contacted the deponent to inquire about the nonappearance.” LMC also provided notice that it was seeking sanctions pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.450, in the amount of $635 in attorneys’ fees reasonably incurred in the preparation of this Motion as well fees in an amount to be determined incurred in connection with the preparation of LMC’s expected reply brief, and costs of deposition in an amount to be determined. (See LMC Motion [Smith].) In the notice of motion for the Sky Lift motion, LMC did not list an amount but also cited to the same code section. (LMC Motion [Sky Lift].)

In the reply, LMC acknowledges that the motions to compel are moot because Sky Lift produced its CEO and PMK for deposition prior to the filing of the reply. (See Consolidated Reply at 2:2-4.) However, LMC still requests sanctions. Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.450(g)(1) provides, if a motion to compel under “subdivision (a) is granted, the court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) in favor of the party who noticed the deposition and against the deponent or the party with whom the deponent is affiliated, unless the court finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.” (Code Civ. Proc., 2025.450(g)(1).) Here, because the motions are moot, the Court did not grant the motion to compel. LMC’s requests for sanctions are DENIED.

Case Number: SC128899    Hearing Date: May 26, 2021    Dept: M

CASE NAME: Sky Lift Aeronautics, LLC v. Lockheed Martin Corp., et al.

CASE NO.: SC128899

MOTION: Motions to Deem RFAs Admitted against Plaintiffs (combined)

1. Motions to Deem RFAs Admitted against Plaintiffs (combined)

Legal Standard

When a party fails to timely respond to requests for admissions (RFAs), “[t]he requesting party may move for an order that the genuineness of any documents and the truth of any matters specified in the requests be deemed admitted, as well as for a monetary sanction.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280(b).) “The party to whom the requests for admission are directed waives any objection to the requests, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product under Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 2018.010).” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280(a).) The motion will be denied if the court finds that the party upon whom the requests have been served has provided a response that is in substantial compliance with section 2033.220.

Discovery sanctions are mandatory “on the party or attorney, or both, whose failure to serve a timely response to requests for admission necessitated this motion.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280.) Requests for sanctions must “identify every person, party, and attorney against whom the sanction is sought, and specify the type of sanction sought. The notice of motion shall be supported by a memorandum of points and authorities, and accompanied by a declaration setting forth facts supporting the amount of any monetary sanction sought.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.040.)

Analysis

The motions are partially moot. Plaintiffs served responses prior the hearing on these motions.

Binns’ motion - April 22, 2021 (reservation no. 612056559354)

On April 22, 2021, Defendant Robert Binns (“Binns”) filed a motion to deem its requests for admissions propounded upon Plaintiff Sky Lift Aeronautics (“Sky Lift”) and to Plaintiff Millennium Airship Inc. (“Millennium”) admitted. Binns also seeks monetary sanctions against Plaintiffs Sky Lift and Millennium only in the amount of $6,475.15.

On May 6, 2021, Plaintiffs filed a joint opposition. Plaintiffs opposed the motion arguing that they provided responses to the RFAs. (See Wix. Decl. ¶ 10 ISO opp. to Binns motion.). Plaintiffs also opposed sanctions arguing that the sanctions requested were excessive. In reply, Binns argues that the sanctions are mandatory and reasonable.

Sanctions are mandatory against the party, attorney, or both that necessitates a motion under section 2033.280. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280(c).) As noted above, Binns seeks sanctions against Sky Lift and Millennium and not counsel. Here, Sky Lift has not shown that it acted with substantial justification when it failed to file timely responses. The Court, however, finds that the requested amount is unreasonably high. The Court grants Binns’ request for sanctions against Sky Lift and Millennium in favor of Binns in the reduced and reasonable amount of $1,000.

Hybrid and Lockheed’s motions - April 23, 2021 (reservation no. 335271371517 - Hybrid, no. 016181661396 – Lockheed Martin)

There are three motions to deem the RFAs admitted. First, on April 23, 2021, Defendant Hybrid Enterprises, LLC (“Hybrid”) filed its motion against Plaintiffs Sky Lift and Millennium. Hybrid also seeks monetary sanctions against Plaintiffs Sky Lift and Millennium only, in the amount of $3,490.65. Sky Lift and Millennium filed a joint opposition arguing that the motion should be denied because they served responses to the RFAs. (See Wix Decl. ISO opp. to Hybrid Mot. ¶ 10, Ex. 2.). These responses are verified but also contain objections. In reply, Hybrid argues that it no longer seek to have the requests deemed admitted because Sky Lift and Millennium provided responses, but still seeks sanctions.

Hybrid’s requested sanctions are unreasonably high. The Court finds that Hybrid is entitled to sanctions against Sky Lift and Millennium in the amount of $1,000.

Second, on April 23, 2021, Defendant Lockheed Martin Corp. (“Lockheed”) also filed a motion to deem RFAs admitted against Sky Lift as to Lockheed’s second set of RFAs. In addition, Lockheed seeks monetary sanctions in the amount of $3,617.65 against Sky Lift only.

In opposition, Plaintiffs argue that they served Defendants’ counsel with code-compliant, verified responses on May 4, 2021, two weeks prior to the hearing on Defendants’ motion. (See Wix. Decl. ¶10, ISO Opp. to Lockheed RFA motion.). In reply, Lockheed argues that sanctions are mandatory.

Sanctions are mandatory against the party, attorney, or both that necessitating a motion under section 2033.280. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280(c).) Lockheed’s requested sanctions are also unreasonably high for this short motion.  The Court finds that Lockheed is entitled to sanctions against Sky Lift in the amount of $1,000.

Legal Standard

Form & Special Interrogatories

When a party fails to respond to interrogatories, the requesting party may move for an order compelling a response to the interrogatories. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290(b).) A party that fails to respond to interrogatories “waives any right to exercise the option to produce writings under Section 2030.230, as well as any objection to the interrogatories, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product under Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 2018.010).” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290(a).)

The Court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 “against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a response to interrogatories, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust . . ..” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290(c).)

analysis

This order disposes of the five motions filed by Defendants Hybrid and Binns, which seek to compel initial responses to form and special interrogatories, as well as Lockheed’s motion seeking to compel initial responses to special interrogatories, set two. Defendants also seek sanctions against Plaintiffs.

Form and Special interrogatories – Binns – Reservation nos. 799721031650, 881562526786, respectively

Defendant Binns filed motions seeking orders compelling plaintiff Millennium to respond to Binns’ Form Interrogatories, as well as a request for monetary sanctions in the amount of $1,077.65 against Plaintiffs. Defendant Binns also moves the Court for an order compelling plaintiff Millennium to respond to Binns’ Special Interrogatories, Set One and monetary sanctions in the amount of $1,077.65 against Millennium.

Although Plaintiff served untimely responses to Binns’ requests, the responses contained objections. A party that fails to respond to interrogatories “waives any right to exercise the option to produce writings under Section 2030.230, as well as any objection to the interrogatories, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product under Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 2018.010).” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290(a).) Here, the responses, which are untimely, improperly included objections. (See Wix Decl. ISO Opp. to Binns’ Form interrogatory motion, Exs. 3-4.) 

Therefore, Binns’ motion to compel initial responses to its form interrogatories is GRANTED. Plaintiffs are ordered to re-serve verified responses without objections within 15 days of this order.

In addition, while Millennium argues that the motion regarding special interrogatories will be moot before the hearing date, Millennium has not served verified responses. (See Wix Decl. ISO opp to Special interrogatory motion ¶ 10.) Therefore, Binns’ motion to compel Millennium’s responses to the first set of special interrogatories is GRANTED. Millennium is ordered to serve verified responses without objections within 15 days of this order.

Form and Special interrogatories – Hybrid – Reservation nos. 774642050727 and 786527843674, respectively

Hybrid’s motion to compel Millennium’s initial responses to set one of its form interrogatories and motion to compel initial responses to set one of its special interrogatories are substantially identical to Binns’ motion.

Plaintiffs argue that the motion is moot because on May 4, 2021, Plaintiffs served Hybrid with fully compliant responses to the form interrogatories. (See Wix Decl. ISO Opp. Hybrid’s to Form interrogatory motion, Exs. 3-4.) These responses also contain objections. Hybrid’s motion to compel initial responses to its form interrogatories is GRANTED. Plaintiffs are ordered to re-serve verified responses without objections within 15 days of this order.

Millennium raises the same opposition argument here as it raised in the Binns motion. It is not evident that this motion is moot. Hybrid’s motion to compel initial responses to special interrogatories is GRANTED. Millennium is ordered to provide verified responses without objections within 15 days of this order.

Special interrogatories – Lockheed – Reservation no. 582283322582

On April 27, 2021, Lockheed filed a motion seeking to compel responses to its special interrogatories, set two against Sky Lift. Sky Lift admits that it has not served code-complaint responses. (See Wix Decl., ¶ 10.) Since Sky Lift’s responses are untimely, Skylift has waived all objections. Therefore, Lockheed’s motion to compel Sky Lift’s responses to its special interrogatories, set two is GRANTED. Skylift is ordered to provide verified responses without objections within 15 days of this order.

Sanctions

The Court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 “against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a response to interrogatories, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust . . ..” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290(c).) Here, Mr. Wix provided the Court with a declaration explaining the combination of circumstances that, in his opinion, warrant a finding that sanctions are unjust.

The Court disagrees with Mr. Wix’s opinion. First, Skylift and Millennium have still not responded to the discovery. Moreover, there is no dispute that the responses were untimely, so Plaintiffs were unjustified in including objections within their responses. Finally, there are multiple attorneys handling this matter for Plaintiffs, so Mr. Wix’s absence is insufficient.

The Court imposes monetary sanctions against Plaintiffs in the amount of $750 per motion. Millennium is ordered to pay Binns $1,500. Millennium is ordered to pay Hybrid $1,500. Sky Lift is ordered to pay Lockheed $750. Sanctions are payable within 30 days.

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where KORN/FERRY INTERNATIONAL INC. is a litigant

Latest cases where Lockheed Martin Corporation is a litigant

Latest cases represented by Lawyer LY JOHN K