Free Joint Status Report - District Court of Federal Claims - federal

Case 1:01-cv-00538-FMA

Document 97

Filed 02/22/2006

Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS ____________________________________ ) ) ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) ) v. ) ) ) THE UNITED STATES, ) ) Defendant. ) ____________________________________) KENT D. FLORO,

No. 01-538 L Judge Francis M. Allegra

JOINT STATUS REPORT

Pursuant to the Court's Order of January 30, 2006 (Doc. # 96), the parties respectfully submit the following joint status report proposing a trial date in this matter. The Parties state: 1. The parties have conferred regarding the pre-trial and trial schedule. The parties

suggest that, subject to the Court's approval and as convenient with the Court's schedule, trial should occur beginning September 18, 2006. Trial is anticipated to last not longer than 5 days and, as previously ordered by the Court, would occur in Toledo, Ohio. 2. are as follows: Motions in limine to be filed by: Oppositions to motions in limine to be filed by: Replies to motions in limine to be filed by: 1 June 9, 2006 June 23, 2006 June 30, 2006 The parties also propose the following dates for briefing motions in limine, which

Case 1:01-cv-00538-FMA

Document 97

Filed 02/22/2006

Page 2 of 3

The parties' positions differ in other respects and are set forth below. 4. Defendant respectfully requests that in addition to the dates above, the Court

establish the following deadlines in accordance with Appendix A to the Rules of the Court of Federal Claims: Plaintiff's Memorandum of Contentions of Law and Fact (Revised), Witness List (Revised), Exhibit List (Revised): Defendant's Memorandum of Contentions of Law and Fact (Revised), Witness List (Revised), Exhibit List (Revised): Pre-Trial Conference:

April 28, 2005

May 26, 2006 August 7, 2006 (or other date convenient for the Court)

Although the parties previously filed memoranda and witness and exhibit lists, Defendant believes that because the focus of Plaintiff's case to date has been Plaintiff's alleged regulatory takings claim, revised filings are necessary to frame the issues and expected evidence more concisely in light of the Court's September 13, 2005 Opinion. Defendant is unclear as to what Plaintiff's contentions are concerning the alleged physical takings claim, what witnesses Plaintiff intends to call concerning Plaintiff's alleged physical takings claim, and what exhibits Plaintiff intends to use at trial to prove its alleged physical takings claim. Defendant believes that a majority of the witnesses and majority of exhibits already submitted in this case will be irrelevant to Plaintiff's physical takings claims, and therefore should be withdrawn, since the Court has dismissed Plaintiff's regulatory takings claim. 5. Plaintiff feels Appendix A has already been complied with and therefore does not

wish to file revised Memorandum of Contentions of Law and Fact, revised witness lists, or revised exhibit lists. 2

Case 1:01-cv-00538-FMA

Document 97

Filed 02/22/2006

Page 3 of 3