Free Order - District Court of Federal Claims - federal

Case 1:92-cv-00580-EJD

Document 340

Filed 05/28/2008

Page 1 of 2

In the United States Court of Federal Claims
No. 92-580 C (Filed: May 28, 2008) ************************************ SPARTON CORPORATION, Plaintiff, v. THE UNITED STATES, Defendant. ************************************ ORDER At the close of trial on May 9, 2008, Plaintiff moved for the admission of a large number of exhibits. The Court ruled on most, but not all, of the exhibits at that time. On May 16, 2008, Defendant's counsel provided clarification via email of Defendant's objections to those exhibits which had not yet been ruled upon. Accordingly, the Court makes the following rulings regarding admission of the exhibits: (1) During trial, Defendant objected to PX-155 as containing reference to the declaration of a previously-excluded expert witness, Ralph Nash. The Court granted Defendant's objection and ordered Plaintiff to provide redacted copies of PX-155. On May 9, 2008, Plaintiff provided redacted copies of PX-155 to Defendant and to the Court. Defendant's counsel has subsequently noted that Plaintiff's counsel redacted too much from PX-155, resulting in subtle changes to the meaning of PX-155. To avoid further delay, the Court has redacted PX-155. The redacted version of that document is attached to this Order and is hereby ADMITTED. (2) Defendant does not object to the admission of PX-250 to PX-252 or PX-254 to 258, as supplemented with Defendant's cross-designated transcript pages. Those exhibits are hereby ADMITTED. (3) The Court has previously ruled on objections by Defendant to PX-295 and PX-296. PX-295 and PX-296 are ADMITTED. (4) Defendant objects to admission of Plaintiff's Exhibit 277 on the basis that it should be excluded pursuant to the Court's ruling at trial on April 30, 2008. The ruling excluded any documents which were not cited in Dr. Donald Martin's expert report, but which, during his * * * * * * * * * * *

Case 1:92-cv-00580-EJD

Document 340

Filed 05/28/2008

Page 2 of 2

direct testimony, Dr. Martin purported to have relied upon in forming the conclusions in his expert report. However, Dr. Martin's discussion of PX-277 occurred during his redirect testimony on May 1, 2008. Dr. Martin did not testify that he relied upon PX-277 in forming any conclusion in his expert report. Rather, Dr. Martin addressed PX-277 only as it regarded a topic raised on cross-examination: the allocation of research and development costs between the Navy and its sonobuoy contractors. Dr. Martin was asked how he would consider PX-277 in light of the discussion during his cross-examination of PX-110, not whether he had previously considered PX-277 and formed a conclusion based thereon.1 Thus, the Court finds that PX-277 is not covered by the April 30 ruling. PX-277 is therefore ADMITTED.

s/ Edward J. Damich EDWARD J. DAMICH Chief Judge

In addition, Defendant fully cross-examined Dr. Martin in regard to PX-277 during recross on May 1. -2-

1