Free Response to Motion - District Court of Federal Claims - federal

Case 1:93-cv-00655-MMS

Document 163-6

Filed 08/21/2007

Page 1 of 2

U.S. Department of Justice Civil Division
JED:BMS:DHarrington DJ No. 154-93-655 & 154-97-582

Telephone: Facsimile:

(202) 616-0465 (202) 307-0972

Washington, D.C. 20530

August 15, 2007 Via Electronic Mail and U.S. Mail

Harry J. Kelly, Esq. Nixon Peabody LLP 401 Ninth St., N.W. Suite 900 Washington, D.C. 20004
Anaheim Gardens, et al. v, United States, No. 93-655C (Fed. C1.); Algonquin Heights, et al. v. United States, No. 97:582C (Fed. C1.).

Dear Mr. Kelly: Please find enclosed revised deposition notices for the remaining ripeness depositions in these actions. These notices implement a revised deposition schedule, which was requested by your colleague, Alycia Ziarno, and is being adopted to accommodate the preferences of you and your clients. The depositions are being taken in the respective cities that you suggested in earlier correspondence. As you are well aware, the period for ripeness discovery has been open for over a year and is rapidly drawing to a close. In my August 6, 2007 letter, I explained that we hadreceived no inquiries from plaintiffs about dePOsitions of Government witnesses and urged'that you arrange any such depositions promptly "so that witnesses can be informed, necessary travel arranged, appropriate preparations made, and a mutually agreeable schedule established." Letter from David A. Harringt0n to Harry J. Kelly at 1 (Aug. 6, 2007). Over one week has passed, during which time the United. States has taken eight ripeness depositions, and still plaintiffs have neither inquired about the availability of witnesses nor served deposition notices. You have in the past suggested that plaintiffs were planning to take ripeness depositions. If that is still the ¯ case, your delay in serving notice is prejudicial and reflecis a lack of professional courtesy that stands in stark contrast to our own ongoing efforts to accommodate the schedules and preferences of you and your clients. If plaintiffs intend to take any ripeness .depositions, please hand serve deposition notices immediately, but in no event later than 2:00 p.m., Friday, August 17, 2007, so that we can determine whether we can accommodate your requests or should seek a protective order. I note that Ms. Ziarno recently inquired about an extension of the current deadline for ripeness discovery. The Court has twice extended the period for ripeness discovery, which has

Case 1:93-cv-00655-MMS

Document 163-6

Filed 08/21/2007

Page 2 of 2

-2given the parties an additional eight months to conduct discovery. I have repeatedly emphasized that the United States would complete ripeness discovery by the August 31, 2007 deadline and that plaintiffs would be expected to. do the same. I am aware of no reasons that a further extension of the discovery deadline is warranted. Very truly yours,

David A. Harrington Trial Attorney Commercial Litigation Branch Enclosures