Free Status Report - District Court of Federal Claims - federal

Case 1:98-cv-00720-GWM

Document 293-6

Filed 03/15/2005

Page 1 of 2

U.S. Departmen of Justice t Civ/1 Division DMC:KAB:DHarrington DJ No. 154-98-720 Telephone: Facsimile: (202) 307-0277 (202) 307-0972

Washington, D.C 20530

March 9, 2005 Via Facsimile & U.S. Mail Alan L Saltman, Esq. Richard W. Goeken, Esq. Saltrnan &Stevens, P.C. 1801 K Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20006
Re:

Precision Pine & Timber,Inc. v. UnitedStates, Fed. C1. No. 98-720C(Judge George W. Miller)

Dear Mr. Goeken: I amwriting to in response to your March8, 2005letter. Withrespect to the verification of interrogatory answers, your letter suggests that Precision Pine intends to renege on our previous agreementto exchangeverification sheets for the parties' interrogatory answers. I amdisappointed that you appear unwilling to resolve this issue amicably. TheRules of the Court of Federal Claimsplainly require that the each interrogatory "be answeredseparately, fully in writing under oath." RCFC 33(19)(1). Noverification under oath of Precision Pine's original and supplementalinterrogatory answers has been provided. Yourletter correctly notes that interrogatory answersby a corporate party maybe verified by the party's agents and that such agents include counsel However, verification requirementis not the somehow negated by a signature in counsel's capacity as attorney of record. S~ee ~ Shepherdv. AmericanBroadcastin~ Companies,62 F.3d 1469, 1482 ~.C. Cir. 1995). (Rule 33 "permits representative of a corporate party to verif2 the corporation's answers")(emphasisadded). If Precision Pine continues to refuse to providethe required verification, wewill haveno choice but to raise the issue with the Court. If Precision Pine choosesto use counselas its corporate representative for the verification of interrogatory answers,wereserve the fight to add counselto our final witness list. Withrespect to a stipulation regarding the end of the MSO suspension,it is law of the case that December 1996 is the end date of the MSO 4, suspension for the Brookbank,Hay, Jersey Horse, Kettle, Manaco,Monument, O.D. Ridge, Salt, Saginaw-Kennedy U-Bar contracts. Precision and

Case 1:98-cv-00720-GWM

Document 293-6

Filed 03/15/2005

Page 2 of 2

-2Pine & Timber. Inc. v. United States, 50 Fed. C1.35, 38 (2001).1 This is confirmed by DX429, which shows that notice was given to Precision Pine on December 1996, and DX62,which shows 4, that Precision Pine beganpreparations for harvesting the Haycontract on December 1996.'- It 4, wouldbe disappointing if Precision Pine were unwilling to stipulate to this previously established fact. Verytruly yours,

Co~erci~ Litigation

Br~ch

1 As you know, the suspension of the Brarm, Hutch-Boondock, Joe, and Mudcontracts had St. beenlifted previously. 2 Additionally, Precision Pine was informed ha writing on December 1996 that it was 5, "authorized to initiate harvesting activity on any and all of the Forest Service timber sales you currently hold under contract." DX17