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

Case 1:98-cv-00484-JPW

Document 275

Filed 10/18/2006

Page 1 of 4

No. 98-484C (Senior Judge Wiese)

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS

NORTHERN STATES POWER COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. THE UNITED STATES, Defendant. DEFENDANT'S REPLY TO PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO STRIKE PLAINTIFF'S "NOTICE OF DEPOSITION AND TRIAL TESTIMONY DESIGNATIONS" AND, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, MOTION IN LIMINE TO PRECLUDE RELIANCE UPON THOSE DESIGNATIONS AS SUBSTANTIVE EVIDENCE PURSUANT TO RCFC 32(a) AND FEDERAL RULE OF EVIDENCE 801(d)(2)

PETER D. KEISLER Assistant Attorney General DAVID M. COHEN Director OF COUNSEL: JANE K. TAYLOR Office of General Counsel U.S. Department of Energy 1000 Independence Avenue S.W. Washington, D.C. 20585 ANDREW P. AVERBACH ALAN J. LO RE STEPHEN FINN Civil Division Department of Justice 1100 L Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20530 October 18, 2006 HAROLD D. LESTER, JR. Assistant Director HEIDE L. HERRMANN Trial Attorney Commercial Litigation Branch Civil Division Department of Justice Attn: Classification Unit, 8th Floor 1100 L Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20530 Tel: (202) 305-3315 Fax: (202) 307-2503

Attorneys for Defendant

Case 1:98-cv-00484-JPW

Document 275

Filed 10/18/2006

Page 2 of 4

TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE DEFENDANT'S REPLY TO PLAINTIFFS' RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO STRIKE PLAINTIFF'S "NOTICE OF DEPOSITION AND TRIAL TESTIMONY DESIGNATIONS" AND, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, MOTION IN LIMINE TO PRECLUDE RELIANCE UPON THOSE DESIGNATIONS AS SUBSTANTIVE EVIDENCE PURSUANT TO RCFC 32(a) AND FEDERAL RULE OF EVIDENCE 801(d)(2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 DISCUSSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 I. NSP CANNOT ESTABLISH AN INDEPENDENT BASIS FOR THE ADMISSION OF THE DESIGNATED TESTIMONY PURSUANT TO FEDERAL RULE OF EVIDENCE 801(d)(2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 A. NSP Cannot Establish That Messrs. Morgan And Lawrence Are `Agents' Of The Government As Is Necessary To Allow The Admission Of Their Deposition Testimony Pursuant To FRE 801(d)(2)©) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Mr. Cole, As A Contractor, Is Not Employed By DOE For The Purposes Of The Admission Of His Prior Testimony Pursuant To FRE 801(d)(2)(D) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 NSP Has Not Met Its Burden To Establish That The Testimony Designated For The DOE Employees Is Within The Scope Of Their Employment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

B.

C.

II.

NSP HAS NOT MADE THE PROPER SHOWING AS TO WHY DESIGNATED TESTIMONY SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO BURDEN THE RECORD, PARTICULARLY FOR WITNESSES WHO ARE SCHEDULED TO TESTIFY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 CONTRARY TO NSP'S CONCERNS, THE GOVERNMENT HAS PROPERLY LODGED OBJECTIONS TO THE TESTIMONY DESIGNATED AND SOUGHT TO COMPLETE THOSE DEPOSITION DESIGNATIONS WITH ITS COUNTER-DESIGNATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

III.

CONCLUSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Case 1:98-cv-00484-JPW

Document 275

Filed 10/18/2006

Page 3 of 4

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CASES Aliotta v. National R.R. Passenger Corp., 315 F.3d 756 (3d Cir. 2003) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Angelo v. Armstrong World Industrial, 11 F.3d 957 (10th Cir. 1993) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Chemtool, Inc. v. Lubrication Techs., Inc., 148 F.3d 742 (7th Cir. 1998) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Collins v. Wayne Corp., 621 F.2d 777 (5th Cir. 1980) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Evans v. Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J., 192 F. Supp. 2d 247 (S.D.N.Y. 2002) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Harris v. Itzhaki, 183 F.3d 1043 (9th Cir. 1999) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Kirk v. Raymark Indus., Inc., 61 F.3d 147 (3d Cir. 1995) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Lockheed Martin Corp. v. United States, 50 Fed. Cl. 550 (2001), aff'd, 48 Fed. Appx. 752 (Fed. Cir. 2002) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. United States, Nos. 04-0074 & -0075, 2006 WL 2925649 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5, 13 Renda Marine, Inc. v. United States, 66 Fed. Cl. 639 (2005) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Rotec Indus. v. Mitsubishi Corp., 215 F.3d 1246 (Fed. Cir. 2000) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Sea-Land Serv., Inc. v. Lozen Int'l, Inc., 285 F.3d 808 (9th Cir. 2001) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Theriot v. J. Ray McDermott & Co., Inc., 742 F.2d 877 (5th Cir. 1984) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 United States v. Int'l Bus. Machs. Corp., 90 F.R.D. 377 (S.D.N.Y. 1981) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Case 1:98-cv-00484-JPW

Document 275

Filed 10/18/2006

Page 4 of 4

United States v. Marin, 669 F.2d 73 (2d Cir. 1982) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 United States v. Sweiss, 814 F.2d 1208 (7th Cir. 1987) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Westinghouse Electric Corp. v. United States, Nos. 93-445C & 93-446C, 1997 WL 1068204 (Fed. Cl. June 4, 1997) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Yankee Atomic Electric Co. v. United States, No. 98-126C, 2004 WL 2450874 (Fed. Cl. Sept. 17, 2004) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 MISCELLANEOUS Fed. R. Evid. 801(d) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . passim Restatement (Second) of Agency § 1 cmt. a (1958) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3