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

Case 1:98-cv-00720-GWM

Document 332-12

Filed 04/28/2005

Page 1 of 2

U.S. Department Justice of Civil Division DMC:KAB:DHarrington DJ No. 154-98-720 Telephone: Facsimile: (202) 307-0277 (202) 307-0972

Washington, D.C. 20530

March 14, 2005 Via Facsimile & U.S. Mail Alan I. Saltman, Esq. Richard W. Goeken, Esq. Saltman & Stevens, P.C. 1801 K Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20006
Re:

Precision Pine &Timber, h~c. v. United States, Fed. C1. No. 98-720C(Judge George W. Miller)

Gentlemen: I have received your March11, 2005letter, whichcontains several questions regarding exhibits on the UnitedStates' preliminary exlfibit list. I amwriting to providea preliminaryresponseto your questions and, additionally, to raise a few other issues that wewill need to workthrou~. First, with respect to DX666, aminvestigating the origin of the 2/11/2005date on the copy I provided to you. However,as I explained to Mr. Goeken, given Mr. Moosman performed no new has analysis of Precision Pine's claims, the date is mostlikely a date codereflecting the date the document wasprinted. Second, as your letter notes, the documentsidentified as DX775 (Munn), DX776 ~euberger), DX777 (Moosman), DX778 and (Adldns), are the expert reports that were served in the course discovery in this action. Yourstatement regarding "newopinions" and "newexhibits" is not correct. Weanticipate providing one or moresupplemental reports from our experts in accordance with the Court's January 4, 2005order. Third, your letter states you havebeguna reviewof the UnitedStates' preliminaryexhibits, that only cover sheets have been supplied for exhibits DX594, DX595, DX596, and that the first two pages of DX597 illegible, and that the copies of DX660-64 are appear to have extraneous pages. Wewill look into these issues. Wehave likewise beguna review of Precision Pine's exhibits. Whilethat review is ongoing, we have determined that PX102 (preliminary exhibit 40) was not supplied. Please provide a copy PX102 your earliest convenience.For the sake of efficiency, we intend to wait until our review of at

Case 1:98-cv-00720-GWM

Document 332-12

Filed 04/28/2005

Page 2 of 2

-2Precision Pine's exhibits is completeto raise additional issues regarding your exhibits and proposethat you do the samewith respect to Government exhibits. Lastly, as you are aware, there is a substantial overlap between parties' respective exhibit the lists. After wehavefiled a final exhibit list, weproposecomparing lists and developing list of joint the a ~ exhibits. For instance, as wehavediscussed, it wouldbe beneficial to havethe parties jointly designate a completecopyof each contact, together with all contract modifications, as joint exhibits.1 This should be a simplematter onceour final exhibit list has beenfiled. Verytruly yours,

David A. Harrington Trial Attorney CommercialLitigation Branch

a During our discussion, we confirmed that the United States intended to include on our preliminaryexhibit list completecopies of all contracts at issue (with the exceptionof sale area maps) and competecopies of all modifications and amendments those contracts. Youindicated that to Precision Pine prefers to include sale area mapsas well. Wehave no objection to including such maps in any joint exhibits.