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

83/1412085

Case 1:98-cv-00720-GWM

17:55

282-775-8217

Document 332-13

SALTI~t~NAND STEk]ENS

Filed 04/28/2005

Page 1 of 2

PAGE

82185

SALTMAN& STEVENS,P.C.
1801 Street, Suite K N,W., M-If0, Wmqhmg~on, 20008 D.C. ('>02) 452-2.140 F~c(20~) ea~B217 ~ E-nqa/hr gocken@saltmam andsteven s.com

March14, 2005

VIA FACSIMILE ANDU.S. MAIL David A. Hanin~on U.S. Department Justice of CommercialLitigation Branch Civil Division Attn: Classification Unit 1100L Street, N.W.,8m Floor "qv'asbin=mon, D.C. 20530 Re: Dear David: We have received your letter dated March14, 2005, whichresponds to someaspects of PrecisionPine's letter of March 2005.Withrespect to the issues weidentified in tha~ letter 11, regarding DX594-DX597, DX660-DX664 and DX666, we would appreciate a definitive responseas soon as possible. Youalso write for the first time that "We anticipate providingone or moresupplemental reports from our experts in accordancewith the Court's January 4, 2005order." That order~ however, provides for a single governmentexpert and report, at most. ~ ~, order at item 8: ("Defendant'sdeadline for.., submitting rebuttal report~ if any, of defendant's expert: Monday March21, 2005"); order at item 10 ("Plaintiffs deadline for conductingdeposition defendanl's rebuttal expert: Monday April 11, 2005"). Wenote that the government not has stated definitively that it will producemoretl~an one report. However, an effort to avoidany in possible dispute on this point, please be advisedthat, based on the order, Precision Pine would opposethe production of morethan one report by defendant. Youalso indicate that you did not reccdve a copy of Precision Pine's Finn Exhibit 120 " 0areliminaD Exhibit 40). We note that our cover letter that accompanied those of Precision Pine's preliminaryexhibits that wecopiedat your request expressly states ~hat PreliminaryEx. 40 ~as incIudedamong them. Se_._~ePrecision Pine's letter of March 2005at 1, secondbullet 4, point. Nevertheless,enclosedwith this letter is an additional copyof that exhibit. Precision Pine & Timber. Inc. v. United States, CoFC 98-720C No.

MQR-14-2885 18:82

2~2 77~ 8217

87Z

P.82

03/~ 4/2005 ].7:55

Case 1:98-cv-00720-GWM

202-775-8217

S,~LTHN-I Ai',ID STEVENS

PAGE 03/05

Document 332-13

Filed 04/28/2005

Page 2 of 2

David A. Harrinpon U.S. Departmemof Justice March 14, 2005 Page 2

Finally, as we have already discussed, Precision Pine also believes that the designation of joint exhibits is good idea, that once the government submits i~ final exhibit list wevdlL both have a better idea of what those ex~bits are, and that the contract documents, including modifications and maps, are likely a good place to start. Very truly yours~ SAL'I-MAN & STEVENS, P.C.

Richard

W Goeken

Enclosure

MAR-14-288518:82

~82 975 8817

98X

P.83