Free Order on Motion for Leave to File - District Court of Federal Claims - federal

Case 1:98-cv-00720-GWM

Document 408

Filed 01/10/2006

Page 1 of 2

In the United States Court of Federal Claims
____________________________________ ) ) ) ) Plaintiff, ) v. ) ) THE UNITED STATES, ) ) Defendant. ) ____________________________________) PRECISION PINE & TIMBER, INC., ORDER On December 13, 2005, defendant filed a Motion for Leave to File Corrected Proposed Findings of Fact. Defendant stated that a small number of citations in Defendant's Proposed Findings of Fact filed on September 2, 2005 were incorrect and that defendant wished to correct its Proposed Findings of Fact so that only admitted documents were cited as record evidence. On December 20, 2005, plaintiff filed Plaintiff's Response to Defendant's Motion for Leave to File Corrected Proposed Findings of Fact, requesting that the Court deny defendant's motion. Plaintiff stated that Defendant's Corrected Proposed Findings of Fact sought to make substantive changes to provide support for defendant's proposed findings, rather than simply correcting citation errors. On December 21, 2005, defendant filed Defendant's Reply in Support of Its Motion for Leave to File Corrected Proposed Findings of Fact. Defendant stated that its Corrected Proposed Findings of Fact offered no new proposed findings of fact and made no changes to the text of previously submitted proposed findings of fact. On January 4, 2006, at the request of the Court, defendant filed a Redlined Copy of Defendant's Corrected Proposed Findings of Fact, showing the changes that were proposed to be made to the original version of Defendant's Proposed Findings of Fact. On January 6, 2006, plaintiff filed Plaintiff's Review of Defendant's Notice of Filing Redlined Copy of Defendant's Corrected Proposed Findings of Fact. Plaintiff again requested that Defendant's Motion for Leave to File Corrected Proposed Findings of Fact be denied. Plaintiff also stated that if the motion were not denied, prejudice to plaintiff could only be obviated if the Court were to grant plaintiff additional time in which to file a revised post-trial response brief. After reviewing the Redlined Copy of Defendant's Corrected Proposed Findings of Fact, the Court ORDERS that Defendant's Motion for Leave to File Corrected Proposed Findings of Fact is GRANTED. The Court FURTHER ORDERS that plaintiff shall have the opportunity to revise its Post-Trial Response Brief (Docket Entry 396) for the limited purpose of: 1) deleting

No. 98-720 C

Filed January 10, 2006

Case 1:98-cv-00720-GWM

Document 408

Filed 01/10/2006

Page 2 of 2

any arguments that have been vitiated by reason of the corrections made in Defendant's Corrected Proposed Findings of Fact; or 2) adding any new arguments that are responsive to the corrections. Plaintiff shall not revise its post-trial response brief to add any arguments that were available at the time plaintiff filed its original Post-Trial Response Brief on November 14, 2005. Permissible revisions are strictly limited to those directly responding to the corrections made in Defendant's Corrected Proposed Findings of Fact. Plaintiff's Revised Post-Trial Response Brief shall exceed the 70-page limit established in the Court's Order of November 1, 2005 by no more than five pages. Any new arguments responsive to defendant's corrections shall be made in 12point font in accordance with Rule 5.3(c) of the Rules of the Court of Federal Claims. Plaintiff shall file and serve its Revised Post-Trial Response Brief, in conformity with the foregoing, on or before Tuesday, January 24, 2006. IT IS SO ORDERED. s/ George W. Miller GEORGE W. MILLER Judge

-2-