Free Objection to Witness List - District Court of Federal Claims - federal

Case 1:02-cv-01622-LB

Document 60

Filed 06/08/2006

Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS

BLUEPORT COMPANY LLC, Plaintiff, -vTHE UNITED STATES, Defendant. PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTIONS TO DEFENDANT'S WITNESS AND EXHIBITS LISTS COMES NOW Plaintiff and submits these Objections to Defendant's list of witnesses and exhibits: 1. Plaintiff objects to any testimony of Defendant's purported expert James Case No. 02-1622C Judge Lawrence J. Block

N. Keohane relating to official employment functions of Mark Davenport or any other Air Force personnel. Plaintiff further objects to any and all parts of Keohane's Expert

Report giving opinions relating to official employment functions of Mark Davenport or any other Air Force personnel. Keohane's curriculum vitae demonstrates no expert knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education relating to duties of Air Force or other military personnel which could assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue. See FRE 702. Nor does Keohane's opinion fall under FRE 701's exception for lay witness testimony. Therefore, Keohane's opinion relating to official job functions is not relevant and should not be permitted. 2. Plaintiff objects to testimony of Glendon Hendricks relating to official

employment functions of Mark Davenport. Hendricks was not a supervisor or reporting senior of Davenport, did not have direct contact with Davenport on any regular basis, and has no basis for any particularized knowledge of the expected duties of an E-6

PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTIONS TO DEFENDANT'S WITNESS AND EXHIBITS LISTS--1

Case 1:02-cv-01622-LB

Document 60

Filed 06/08/2006

Page 2 of 3

assigned Pacific Air Force Command manpower section. Therefore, Hendricks cannot testify as direct witness, nor is he qualified to testify as an expert under FRE 702. Hendricks could only speculate on the expected duties of Davenport, and therefore lacks relevance. FRE 402. 3. Plaintiff objects to testimony of Glendon Hendricks relating to the

operation of Blueport's AUMD software. It is not clear from the record that Hendricks has particular knowledge of AUMD and therefore his testimony lacks relevance. FRE 402. 4. Plaintiff further objects to any opinion testimony of Glendon Henricks as

not previously identified as an expert and/or provided in an expert report.

DATED THIS June 8, 2006, Respectfully submitted, RYLANDER & ASSOCIATES PC /s/ Kurt M. Rylander ________________________ KURT M. RYLANDER Attorney at Law 406 West 12th Street 206 Vancouver, Washington 98660 Tel: (360) 750-9931 Fax: (360) 750-9953 E-mail: [email protected] Of Attorneys for Plaintiff

PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTIONS TO DEFENDANT'S WITNESS AND EXHIBITS LISTS--2

Case 1:02-cv-01622-LB

Document 60

Filed 06/08/2006

Page 3 of 3

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY under penalty of perjury of the laws of the Federal Court that on the date signed below I served a copy of the document to which this certificate is attached by electronic filing with the US Court of Federal Claims which filing serves this document upon attorneys of record for Defendant, Scott Bolden, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division-Commercial Litigation Branch, Washington, D.C. [email protected]. 20530,

DATED THIS June 8, 2006

/s/ Kurt M. Rylander KURT M. RYLANDER, (360) 750-9931 Of Attorneys for Plaintiff RYLANDER & ASSOCIATES PC 406 West 12th Street Vancouver, Washington 98660 Tel: (360) 750-9931 Fax: (360) 750-9953 E-mail: [email protected]

PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTIONS TO DEFENDANT'S WITNESS AND EXHIBITS LISTS--3