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

.. "
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM Document 784-2 Filed 04/07/2004 Page 1 of 2
1350 I Street, NW Washington, DC 20005
l. 202. Q9Q";QOO fax 202. 682. 1639 www. spriggs. com

prigg&!Io llingsworth

Robert L. Shapiro 202. 898. 5879 com rshapiroJspriggs.

March 23 2004

Via Facsimile

Harold D. Lester, Jr. Assistant Director Commercial Litigation Branch Civil Division United States Department of Justice Eighth Floor Mailroom 1100 L Street , N.
Washington, D. C. 20530

Re:
Dear Harv:

Yankee Atomic v. US., Connecticut Yankee v. US.. Maine Yankee v. U.

The government's updated witness lists includes individuals who were not on the government' s prior lists. We would like to arrange for depositions of these individuals (who are not current or former employees of plaintiffs). One of these new witnesses has only been " The identified as a " Member of Office of Nuclear Security and Incident Response. , and any such identification of a specific individual to serve at this witness is long overdue identification must be made by March 30, or we will need to bring this matter to the Court' s Order of August 25 2003 , we need to continue attention. In addition, consistent with the Court'

our depositions of Messrs. Campbell, Huizenga and Kennedy. Also, we previously deferred our deposition of James Carlson at the government's request; we now need to arrange for his deposition. Finally, given the significant number of documents produced related to Mr. Zabransky since his last deposition, we need a brief extension of his deposition. As we would like to conduct these depositions in April or early May, please provide us with dates when the witnesses who are current or former government employees or contractors (the individuals noted above plus Ms. Bubar and Mr. Kouts) are available as soon as possible.
, Lepisto and Several of the other newly named witnesses - Messrs. Boyea, Davis , Helin Shyloski -- appear to be listed solely or primarily to testify regarding the authenticity of ' testimony will be documents. To the extent the government can confirm that these witnesses limited to the authenticity of documents, we can likely avoid the need for their depositions. , then the the extent the government is unable or unwilling to provide such confirmation government must modify its witness list to provide the " succinct statement of the nature and s November scope ofthe testimony to be presented by each such witness " required by the Court' to " other relevant matters , 1998 pretrial order. The reference in the current witness lists

,.

. . .

Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
S p rigg&I

Document 784-2

Filed 04/07/2004

Page 2 of 2

0 llings worth

Harold D. Lester, Jr. March 23, 2004 Page 2 of 2
manifestly provides no real information regarding the nature and scope the testimony to be ' testimony will be limited to the presented. If the government neither confirms that these witness
authenticity of documents nor provides the required statements of the nature and scope of the s attention. testimony to be presented by March 30, we will have to bring this matter to the Court'
Sincerely,

Robert L. Shapiro

#-L