Free Motion for Miscellaneous Relief - District Court of Federal Claims - federal


File Size: 13.4 kB
Pages: 2
Date: June 27, 2005
File Format: PDF
State: federal
Category: District
Author: unknown
Word Count: 390 Words, 2,646 Characters
Page Size: Letter (8 1/2" x 11")
URL

https://www.findforms.com/pdf_files/cofc/13506/370-1.pdf

Download Motion for Miscellaneous Relief - District Court of Federal Claims ( 13.4 kB)


Preview Motion for Miscellaneous Relief - District Court of Federal Claims
Case 1:98-cv-00720-GWM

Document 370

Filed 06/27/2005

Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS PRECISION PINE & TIMBER, INC., Plaintiff, v. THE UNITED STATES, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

No. 98-720C (Judge George W. Miller)

DEFENDANT'S OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF'S COUNTER-DESIGNATIONS FROM THE DEPOSITION OF JOHN B. SMITH During the course of trial, in order to accommodate certain medical conditions of John B. Smith, the United States agreed to designate testimony from Mr. Smith's deposition in lieu of live direct testimony. Plaintiff, Precision Pine & Timber, Inc. ("Precision Pine"), had not identified Mr. Smith as one of its potential trial witness. However, Precision Pine was permitted to counter-designate testimony from Mr. Smith's deposition in lieu of cross-examination. Upon review of the proposed counter-designations, the United States determined that Precision Pine had proposed testimony beyond the scope of the United States' designations. For instance, Precision Pine counter-designated testimony about various exhibits that were not cited or discussed in Mr. Smith's direct testimony. Because cross-examination is properly limited to the scope of testimony elicited during direct examination, and because Precision Pine's counterdesignations are not so limited, the United States respectfully requests that the Court strike the designations identified on the attachment to this motion.1

During pretrial proceedings, the Court indicated that where a witness was identified by both parties as a trial witness and was called to testify during the plaintiff's case-inchief, all testimony from the witness would be given at one time. Accordingly, the Court indicated that the witness would first testify in plaintiff's case-in-chief and, following the (continued...)

1

Case 1:98-cv-00720-GWM

Document 370

Filed 06/27/2005

Page 2 of 2

Respectfully submitted, PETER D. KEISLER Assistant Attorney General DAVID M. COHEN Director s/ Kathryn A. Bleecker KATHRYN A. BLEECKER Assistant Director s/ David A. Harrington DAVID A. HARRINGTON Attorney Commercial Litigation Branch Civil Division Department of Justice 1100 L Street, N.W. Attn: Classification Unit 8th Floor Washington, D.C. 20530 Tel: (202) 307-0277 Fax: (202) 307-0972 Attorneys for Defendant June 27, 2005

(...continued) completion of direct and cross-examination, would then provide testimony as part of the defendant's case-in-chief. Precision Pine did not identify Mr. Smith as a potential trial witness, and did not call Mr. Smith during its case. Consequently, this procedure is irrelevant to the issue currently before the Court. 2

1