Free Response to Proposed Additional Facts - District Court of Federal Claims - federal


File Size: 49.6 kB
Pages: 5
Date: June 27, 2008
File Format: PDF
State: federal
Category: District
Author: unknown
Word Count: 751 Words, 4,080 Characters
Page Size: Letter (8 1/2" x 11")
URL

https://www.findforms.com/pdf_files/cofc/963/200-2.pdf

Download Response to Proposed Additional Facts - District Court of Federal Claims ( 49.6 kB)


Preview Response to Proposed Additional Facts - District Court of Federal Claims
Case 1:01-cv-00570-MCW

Document 200-2

Filed 06/27/2008

Page 1 of 5

1

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - * SCOTT TIMBER COMPANY, Plaintiff, vs. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant. * * * * * No. 05-708C (Judge Lettow)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - *

DEPOSITION Of RICHARD O. FITZGERALD Washington, D.C. Tuesday, June 24, 2008

Ex. A

Case 1:01-cv-00570-MCW

Document 200-2

Filed 06/27/2008

Page 2 of 5

34

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

Q. A. Q.

You have no recollection about this? I have no recollection. Okay. I think you testified earlier --

I'm sorry, before I go on, is there something you want to add about the exhibit? A. Q. No, I just -I believe you testified earlier that you

didn't participate in the preparation of the contract documents for Pigout, Jigsaw and Whitebird. A. Q. No. Did you participate in the drafting of the

Forest Service's standard 2400-6 or 6(T) contract? A. Q. Which version are you talking about? Well, I will represent to you that the

version that is in the sales at issue in this case is the 1973 or '71 version. A. versions. Q. Okay. I was going to ask a more general No, I did not participate in the 1973

question about the contract clauses, but I probably need to be a little more specific then. You said

you didn't participate in drafting of the '73

Ex. A

Case 1:01-cv-00570-MCW

Document 200-2

Filed 06/27/2008

Page 3 of 5

35

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

version.

Did you participate in drafting of some

other version? A. Well, I reviewed the versions that we're

using now. Q. And do you know how long those have been

in existence? A. Q. About four years. I'm going to break this into time periods.

Prior to 1999, did you participate in drafting particular contract clauses? A. '99. I was trying to think who did most I may have reviewed

of that at that point in time.

some but I did not participate to a great extent. Q. And you said you may have reviewed, and I

think you also said that about the contract -- the standard contract versions currently in effect. A. Q. Yeah. Did you have any responsibility for

drafting contract clauses? A. The people who worked for me had the That's why I hesitated.

responsibility to do that. I was not doing it myself.

Ex. A

Case 1:01-cv-00570-MCW

Document 200-2

Filed 06/27/2008

Page 4 of 5

36

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

Q.

Do you know who drafted contract clause C

or C(T) 6.01? A. Q. A. Q. Not offhand, no. Do you know when it was drafted? I couldn't answer that right away, no. Okay, but did you have any role in the

drafting -A. Q. or -A. Only the discussions we've had recently The original drafting, no. Did you have a role in some other drafting

with the industry. Q. And when you say recently, can you give me

a time period? A. Q. The last three to four years. And what is the context of those

discussions? A. Well, what are the interpretations of the

provisions, and it was partly as a result of the revision of the 2400-6 contract. Q. And when you say the revision, that's the

one that's been in effect for about four years?

Ex. A

Case 1:01-cv-00570-MCW

Document 200-2

Filed 06/27/2008

Page 5 of 5

37

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 --

A. Q.

Yes. But going back to the period before 1999

A. Q.

Uh-huh. Did you have any discussions or

participation in the development of C 6.01? A. of that. Q. Okay. Are you familiar with the I can't recollect having any discussions

plaintiff, Scott Timber Company? A. Q. I am familiar with the company, yes. And you're familiar with the parent

company, Roseburg Forest Products? A. Q. Company? A. Q. Yes. To your knowledge, and again I want to go Yes, I know who they are. And its predecessor, Roseburg Lumber

back to the period before 1999 and then after -- in the period before 1999, did anyone from Scott or Roseburg participate in the drafting of the standard contract?

Ex. A