operation, and have  not been paid for their efforts. The United States denies responsibility,  and invokes the state secrets privilege to avoid responding to plaintiffs'  demands for discovery. The United States Court of Federal Claims concluded  that, even if the individual alleged to be a secret agent was in fact such  an agent, there was an insufficient showing that the agent had authority to  contract on behalf of the United States. The court granted summary judgment  for the United States. Monarch Assurance P.L.C. v. United States, 42 Fed.  Cl. 258 (1998).


2
On appeal, plaintiffs argue that the trial court improperly applied the  state secrets privilege, abused its discretion in curtailing discovery, and  erred by granting summary judgment for theUnited States because sufficient  evidence had been submitted to support a prima facie finding of actual  authority to contract.

I. Background

3
The facts of the case, or at least the allegations made by plaintiffs, the  responses by the United States (hereafter "Government") thereto, and the  trial court's findings, read rather more like a plot for a made-for-TV  movie than a typical contract dispute heard in the federal courts.  Nevertheless, this is the story the record reveals.


4
Plaintiffs are Thomas Patrick Denton Taylor, a resident of the Isle of Man  and the Chief Executive and Managing Director of Monarch Assurance P.L.C.,  an organization headquartered on the Isle of Man and operating under the  laws of England (collectively "Monarch"). In the fall of 1989,