Free Motion for Reconsideration - District Court of Federal Claims - federal

Case 1:98-cv-00720-GWM

Document 346-5

Filed 05/02/2005

Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDEIL,'kL

CLAIMS

PRECISION PINE & TIMBER, INC., Plaintiff, No. 98-720C (Chief Judge Damich) THE UNITED STATES, Defendant.

PLAINTIFF'S RESF'ONSE TO DEFENDANT'S MOTIONI~'OR SANCTIONS AND CROSS-MOTION FOR FEES AND EXPENSES PURSUANT RCFC 37(a)(4)(B) TO

Alan I. Saltman SALTMAN STEVENS, P.C. & 1801 K Street, N.W. Suite M-II0 Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 452-2140 (202) 775-8217- facsimile Counselfor Plaintiff OF COUNSEL: Richard W. Goeken David J. Craig SALTMAN STEVENS, P.C. & i801 K Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 452-2 I40 (202) 775-8217- facsimile Dated: September 16, 2003

Case 1:98-cv-00720-GWM

Document 346-5

Filed 05/02/2005

Page 2 of 3

made, and continues to make, cooperatively and in goodfaith, to complywith its discovery 4 obligations.

At bottom, defendant has been on notice of the details of Precision Pine's damage claims since January of 2002, and in possession of muchof the relevant documentary support for those claims, since at least February26, 2003, whenPrecision Pine served defendant with its revised damagecalculations. 5 However,rather than seeking information related to the damagesthat Precision Pine is actually seeking to recover in this case, defendant chose to serve exceedingly broad, overlapping and ill-defined interrogatories and requests for the production of documents, manyof whichseek information about Precision Pine's entire operations, includin~ those on unrelated contracts over nearly a ten year period.6 Notably, despite this e'xceedinglybroad discovery request, defendant does not complainthat Precision Pine has not provided it with access to any and all documents that it wanted, or that Precision Pine has provided anything but responsive documentsin response to its requests. Although defendant maybe free to use the 4Suchbeing the case, and pursuant to RCFC 37(a)(4)(B), Precision Pine requests that Court awardit its reasonable expenses, including attorney's fees, in defendingagainst this baseless motion. 5Asthe Court will recall from the status conference held on May20, 2003, Precision Pine first provided detailed damageto defendant in February 2002, and on August 24, 2002, during the informal discovery process, counsel for Precision Pine, met for an entire day with counse[ for defendant and a Forest Service accountant, answered exhaustive questions regarding each Component its damage of claim and offered to provide additional information. No further requests were forthcoming until June 20, 2003 whendefendant served its massive formal discovery requests. - 6This Court ruled that the Forest Service breached 12 of Precision Pine's timber sale contracm due to a suspension the agency imposed on August 25, 1995 and lifted on December4, 1996. Instead of focusing on these contracts and this time period, defendant generally sought information for all timber sale contracts held by Precision Pine from 1991to 2000. See, e_~., Interrogatories Nos. 6-9, 15-27. Moreover,defendant's definitions of"documents"are so broad as to have encompassed virtually every piece of paper in Precision Pine's files. 2

Case 1:98-cv-00720-GWM

Document 346-5

Filed 05/02/2005

Page 3 of 3

Respectfully submitted,

s/Alan I. Saltman SALTMAN STEVENS, P.C. & 1801 K Street, N.W. Suite M-1I0 Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 452-2140 (202) 775-8217 - facsimile Counsel-for Plaintiff OF COUNSEL: Richard W. Gocken David J. Craig SALTMAN STEVENS, P.C. & 1801 K Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 452-2140 (202) 775-8217- facsimile Dated: September 16, 2003

/

4O