Free Discovery Scheduling Order - District Court of Federal Claims - federal

Case 1:98-cv-00720-GWM

Document 189

Filed 10/23/2003

Page 1 of 5

In the United States Court of Federal Claims
No. 98-720 C (Filed October 23, 2003) ********************************** * PRECISION PINE & TIMBER, INC., * * Plaintiff, * * v. * * THE UNITED STATES, * * Defendant. * * ********************************** ORDER Pursuant to the status conference held on October 20, 2003, and to Defendant's Status Report, filed October 22, 2003, Plaintiff is ORDERED to further supplement its answer to interrogatory no. 34 by October 30, 2003. When providing its updated answer to Defendant and the Court, Plaintiff shall explain in detail why it did not harvest timber that it anticipated harvesting during the suspension, after the suspension was lifted, including, but not limited to, providing the following information, which shall be listed by contract and subdivided by time period: 1. Brann a. October 23, 1995 to December 31, 1995: Plaintiff shall explain why the Brann contract was not harvested during this time, including, but not limited to, explaining why Precision Pine decided to "begin operations on Hutch-Boondock [on October 23, 1995], and then come back to Brann," since this time period was during Brann's normal operating season. Pl.'s Supplemental. Answer to Interrog. No. 34 (hereinafter "No. 34") at 1. b. April 15, 1996 to May 3, 1996: Plaintiff shall explain why the Brann contract was not harvested during this time, including, but not limited to, explaining why Precision Pine chose not to harvest the Brann contract when it bought "the C-12 sale on the Hualapai reservation," since this time period

Case 1:98-cv-00720-GWM

Document 189

Filed 10/23/2003

Page 2 of 5

was during Brann's normal operating season. No. 34 at 2. c. April 15, 1997 to June 2, 1997: Plaintiff shall explain why the Brann contract was not harvested during this time, as this was during the normal operating season. d. December 15-31, 1997: Plaintiff shall explain why the Brann contract was not harvested during this time, as this was during the normal operating season. e. April 15, 1998 to June 30, 2000: Plaintiff shall explain why the Brann contract was not harvested during the part of this time that was in Brann's normal operating season, including, but not limited to, explaining the connection between the events mentioned in its supplemental answer to interrogatory no. 34 and its decision not to harvest the Brann contract during that time. 2. Brookbank a. April 15, 1997 to November 15, 1997: Plaintiff shall explain why the Brookbank contract was not harvested during this time, including, but not limited to, explaining why Precision Pine did not harvest payment units 1, 4, 5, and 6 during the period of September 15-30, 1997 and explaining how the suspensions of "the Hay, O.D. Ridge, Brann, Saginaw-Kennedy, Salt, Manaco and U-Bar contracts" affected the harvesting of Brookbank. No. 34 at 6. b. May 9, 1998 to June 30, 2000: Plaintiff shall explain why the Brookbank contract was not harvested during the part of this time that was in Brookbank's normal operating season, including, but not limited to, explaining the connection between the events mentioned in its supplemental answer to interrogatory no. 34 and its decision not to harvest the Brookbank contract during that time. 3. Hutch-Boondock a. April 15, 1997 to November 30, 1997: Plaintiff shall explain why the Hutch-Boondock contract was not harvested during this time, including, but not limited to, explaining how the suspensions of "the Hay, O.D. Ridge, Brann, Saginaw-Kennedy, Salt, Manaco and U-Bar contracts" affected the harvesting of Hutch-Boondock. No. 34 at 11. b. June 1, 1998 to June 30, 2000: Plaintiff shall explain why the HutchBoondock contract was not harvested during this time, including, but not limited to, explaining the connection between the events mentioned in its supplemental answer to interrogatory no. 34 and its decision not to harvest the Hutch-Boondock contract during the part of this time that was in HutchBoondock's normal operating season.

Case 1:98-cv-00720-GWM

Document 189

Filed 10/23/2003

Page 3 of 5

4. Jersey Horse a. September 1, 1997 to November 15, 1997: Plaintiff shall explain why the Jersey Horse contract was not harvested during this time, including, but not limited to, explaining how the suspensions of "the Hay, O.D. Ridge, Brann, Saginaw-Kennedy, Salt, Manaco and U-Bar contracts" affected the harvesting of Jersey Horse. No. 34 at 15. b. September 1, 1998 to November 15, 1999: Plaintiff shall explain why the Jersey Horse contract was not harvested during this time, including, but not limited to, explaining the connection between the events mentioned in its supplemental answer to interrogatory no. 34 and its decision not to harvest the Jersey Horse contract during the part of this time that was in Jersey Horse's normal operating season. 5. Kettle ­ June 17, 1997 to August 31, 1997: Plaintiff shall explain why the Kettle contract was not harvested during this time, as this was during the normal operating season. 6. Manaco a. May 1, 1997 to June 2, 1997: Plaintiff shall explain why the Manaco contract was not harvested during this time, as this was during the normal operating season. b. June 1, 1998 to November 30, 1999: Plaintiff shall explain why the Manaco contract was not harvested during this time, including, but not limited to, explaining the connection between the events mentioned in its supplemental answer to interrogatory no. 34 and its decision not to harvest the Manaco contract during the part of this time that was in Manaco's normal operating season. 7. Monument a. April 15, 1997 to November 30, 1997: Plaintiff shall explain why the Monument contract was not harvested during this time, including, but not limited to, explaining how the suspensions of "the Hay, O.D. Ridge, Brann, Saginaw-Kennedy, Salt, Manaco and U-Bar contracts" affected the harvesting of Monument. No. 34 at 22. b. April 15, 1998 to November 30, 1999: Plaintiff shall explain why the Monument contract was not harvested during this time, including, but not limited to, explaining the connection between the events mentioned in its supplemental answer to interrogatory no. 34 and its decision not to harvest the Monument contract during the part of this time that was in Monument's normal operating season.

Case 1:98-cv-00720-GWM

Document 189

Filed 10/23/2003

Page 4 of 5

8. Mud a. June 24, 1996 to August 1, 1996: Plaintiff shall explain why the Mud contract was not harvested during this time, as this was during the normal operating season. b. November 1, 1996 to December 31, 1996: Plaintiff shall explain why the Mud contract was not harvested during this time, as this was during the normal operating season. c. June 1, 1997 to December 31, 1997: Plaintiff shall explain why the Mud contract was not harvested during this time, including, but not limited to, explaining how the suspensions of "the Hay, O.D. Ridge, Brann, Saginaw-Kennedy, Salt, Manaco and U-Bar contracts" affected the harvesting of Mud. No. 34 at 26. 9. O.D. Ridge ­ May 15, 1998 to August 17, 1999: Plaintiff shall explain why the O.D. Ridge contract was not harvested during this time, including, but not limited to, explaining the connection between the events mentioned in its supplemental answer to interrogatory no. 34 and its decision not to harvest the O.D. Ridge contract during the part of this time that was in O.D. Ridge's normal operating season. 10. U-Bar ­ April 15, 1998 to November 30, 1999: Plaintiff shall explain why the U-Bar contract was not harvested during this time, including, but not limited to, explaining the connection between the events mentioned in its supplemental answer to interrogatory no. 34 and its decision not to harvest the U-Bar contract during the part of this time that was in U-Bar's normal operating season. 11. Salt a. May 1, 1997 to June 2, 1997: Plaintiff shall explain why the Salt contract was not harvested during this time, as this was during the normal operating season. b. June 2, 1997 to November 15, 1997: Plaintiff shall explain why the Salt contract was not harvested during the part of this time that was in Salt's normal operating season, including, but not limited to, explaining how the suspensions of a portion of the Salt contract affected the harvesting of the rest of the Salt contract. c. May 1, 1998 to November 15, 1999: Plaintiff shall explain why the Salt contract was not harvested during this time, including, but not limited to, explaining the connection between the events mentioned in its supplemental answer to interrogatory no. 34 and its decision not to harvest the Salt contract during the part of this time that was in Salt's normal operating season.

Case 1:98-cv-00720-GWM

Document 189

Filed 10/23/2003

Page 5 of 5

12. Saginaw-Kennedy a. May 1, 1997 to June 2, 1997: Plaintiff shall explain why the unrestricted portions of the Saginaw-Kennedy contract were not harvested during this time, as this was during the normal operating season. b. May 1, 1998 to December 1, 1999: Plaintiff shall explain why the Saginaw-Kennedy contract was not harvested during this time, including, but not limited to, explaining the connection between the events mentioned in its supplemental answer to interrogatory no. 34 and its decision not to harvest the Saginaw-Kennedy contract during the part of this time that was in Saginaw-Kennedy's normal operating season. IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/ Edward J. Damich EDWARD J. DAMICH Chief Judge