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

Case 1:92-cv-00550-MCW

Document 147

Filed 11/01/2006

Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS NORTHEAST SAVINGS, F.A.
Plaintif6
v.

1 1
Civil Action No. 92-550C Judge Williams

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defindanf.

1

PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DEISGNATE DEPOSITION TESTIMONY OF MESSRS. BRENNER, FISCHBECK. AND O'KEEFE
Plaintiff Northeast Savings, F.A. ("Northeast") hereby respectfully responds to Defendant's Motion to Designate Deposition Testimony of Messrs. Brenner, Fischbeck, and O'Keefe ("Motion"). While Northeast notes that Defendant has not specified the rules or legal principles which it believes justify the admission of the deposition testimony it has designated, Northeast does not object to the admission of the deposition testimony of Mr. Brenner under RCFC 32(a)(3)(E), or to the admission of the deposition testimony of Mr. O'Keefe under RCFC 32(a)(3)(E) and Rule 801 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, provided that the Court also admits some additional excerpts from the Brenner and O'Keefe depositions that are needed to place the testimony designated by the Government into context. In particular, Northeast has identified the following testimony "which ought in fairness . . . be considered," RCFC 32(a)(4), with the testimony designated by the Government: Albert Brenner 24:3 - 25:8; 25:14 - 27:12; 27:22 - 28:17; 38:3 - 41:14; 54:18 55:18; 85:2 - 88:19; 138:8 - 138:15; 139:22 - 141:5; 145:13 146:15; 154:22 - 157:4; 167:21 - 169:l; 169:9- 170:9; 176:5 -

Case 1:92-cv-00550-MCW

Document 147

Filed 11/01/2006

Page 2 of 3

221 :21 (excerpt attached hereto at Tab 1) Kevin O'Keefe 23:4 - 24:2; 27:22 -28:6; 33:15 - 33:20; 58:2 - 58:14; 62:19

1 13:l - 113:14 (excerpt attached hereto at Tab 2) Finally, with respect to Defendant's request to designate portions of Mr. Fischbeck's deposition testimony, as discussed at trial on Monday, October 30, and consistent with the Court's ruling regarding Northeast's motion to designate the deposition testimony of Thomas Kovac, Northeast's position is that since Mr. Fischbeck has testified at trial, Defendant needs to renew its motion to designate Mr. Fischbeck's testimony, at which time Northeast will review the designations in light of the trial testimony and determine whether it will object to any designations as cumulative under Rule 403 of the Federal Rules of Evidence

Respectfully submitted, stCharles J. Cooper Charles J. Cooper & PLLC COOPER KIRK, 555 Eleventh Street, N.W., Suite 750 Washington, D.C. 20004 (202) 220-9600 (202) 220-9601 (fax) Counsel of Record Of Counsel: Michael W. Kirk Vincent J. Colatriano David H. Thompson David Lehn COOPER KIRK, & PLLC 555 Eleventh Street, N.W., Suite 750 Washington, D.C. 20004 (202) 220-9600 (202) 220-9601 (fax) Dated: November 1,2006

Case 1:92-cv-00550-MCW

Document 147

Filed 11/01/2006

Page 3 of 3

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on this 1st day of November, 2006, copies of the foregoing Plaintiff s Response to Defendant's Notice of Deposition Testimony Counter- and Cross-designations of Messrs. Burke, Moriarty, Riccobono, Ryan and Ware were filed electronically. Notice of this filing will be sent by operation of the Court's electronic filing system to all parties indicated on the electronic filing receipt. Parties may access this through the Court's system.

ld Charles J. Cooper

Charles J. Cooper COOPER KIRK, & PLLC 555 Eleventh Street NW Suite 750 Washington, DC 20004 (202) 220-9600 (202) 220-9601 (fax) [email protected]