Free Motion in Limine - District Court of Federal Claims - federal

Case 1:98-cv-00720-GWM

Document 323-3

Filed 04/20/2005

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

March7,2005 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, Inc. v. United States, Fed. C1. No. 98-720C(Judge George W. Miller)

Gentlemen: I amwriting to address a number outstanding issues in the Precision Pine case. First, in your of February14, 2005letter, you stated that Precision Pine is preparedto verify its interrogatory answers in accordancewith RCFC At the sametime, you requested verification of the United States' 33. ~ interrogatory answers and suggested that we notify you whenthe Government "has accomplishedits verifications so that wemayexchange verifications." I will be receiving today the requested verification of the UnitedStates' interrogatories answersand will forwardit uponreceipt. Please do the samewith respect to verification pages for Precision Pine's various responsesto the UnitedStates' interrogatories. Second, during our discussion concerningstipulations last week, you requested that we point you to information (1) showingthat the suspensionwas lifted on December 1996, and (2) indicating 4, that Precision Pine requested and received contract term adjustments for the period of the MSO suspension.Withrespect to the first issue, refer to DX429, whichconfirmsthat oral notice of the lifting of the suspension was provided on December4, 1996, and to DX17 DX429,which provide and written notice to Precision Pine on December 1996. Withrespect to the second issue, see for 5, example DX16, DX19, DX117, DX139, DX140, DX163, DX164, DX165, DX170, DX206, DX300, which confirmPrecision Pine's request for and receipt of contract term adjustments. In light of this information,I trust that our proposedstipulations will be acceptable. Additionally, it is my understandingthat Precision Pine intends to revise many its proposedstipulations. Please provide of

~ Almostwithout exception, Precision Pine's interrogatories (and therefore the United States' answers)concernedlegal issues. E.~., Pl.'s Interrog. No. 4 (inquiring about witnesses expectedto called in this action).

Case 1:98-cv-00720-GWM

Document 323-3

Filed 04/20/2005

Page 2 of 2

-2any revised, proposedstipulations as soon as possible so that they can be reviewedand, if appropriate, incorporatedinto the joint stipulations to be filed on March 11. Third, your preliminary exhibit list contains various proposed"summaries."Withrespect to "exhibits to be offered as summariesunder Fed. R. Evid. 1006," Paragraph 13(a) of RCFC Appendix Aprovides that the offering party shall provide various information to opposingcounsel including the location of the sources of each exhibit, a "time whenthe source(s) maybe examined audited by the or opposing party," and "the nameand address of the person(s) whoprepared each summary who and will be madeavailable to the opposingparty during any examinationor audit of the source material to provide information and explanations necessary for verification of the information in the sunmaary." RCFC, App.¶ 13(a). We interested in conducting an audit of Precision Pine's summary are exhibits. Consequently,with respect to each summary exhibit, please provide information regarding the location of source documents,the identity of the person whoprepared each exhibit (and whowill be available to provide information and explanations during the audit), and proposed times whenan audit regarding Precision Pine's summariescan be performed. Lastly, a copy of many the documents Precision Pine's preliminary exhibit list was of on received Friday afternoon. Onedocumentcontains a summary timber sale offerings in the Apacheof Sitgreaves, Coconino,Tonto, and KaibabNational Forests in the post-suspension period. Webelieve that these post-suspension volumesnumbersare irrelevant. Nevertheless, we have begun a review of the accuracy of this summary exhibit and anticipate proposingstipulations in the next several days. It is our understandingthat if stipulations regarding post-suspensionvolume figures are entered into, Precision Pine will removeDougMcDonald from its witness list. Wepreviously informed you that a deposition of Mr. McDonald would be conducted on March9, 2005. As we discussed earlier today, in order to provide additional time to stipulate to post-suspensionvolumes,wewill defer taking a deposition of Mr. McDonald. we are unable to stipulate to the volume offerings in the postIf of suspension period, we will take Mr. McDonald's deposition on March17, 2005. Verytruly yours,

David A. Harrington Trial Attorney CommercialLitigation Branch