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

Case 1:98-cv-00484-JPW

Document 235

Filed 08/24/2005

Page 1 of 7

No. 98-484C (Judge Wiese) ______________________________________________________________________________ IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS ______________________________________________________________________________ NORTHERN STATES POWER COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant. ______________________________________________________________________________ DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE EXPERT REPORTS UNDER SEAL AND REQUEST FOR ORDER REGARDING CERTAIN FUTURE DAMAGES, AND CROSS-MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT REGARDING PRE-BREACH AND FUTURE DAMAGES ______________________________________________________________________________ PETER D. KEISLER Assistant Attorney General DAVID M. COHEN Director HAROLD D. LESTER, JR. Assistant Director OF COUNSEL: TODD J. COCHRAN Trial Attorney Commercial Litigation Branch Civil Division Department of Justice Washington, D.C. 20530 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 Tele: (202) 307-6288 Fax: (202) 307-2503 Attorneys for Defendant

August 24, 2005

Case 1:98-cv-00484-JPW

Document 235

Filed 08/24/2005

Page 2 of 7

TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................................................. i TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ......................................................................................................... iii DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE EXPERT REPORTS UNDER SEAL AND REQUEST FOR ORDER REGARDING CERTAIN FUTURE DAMAGES, AND CROSS-MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT REGARDING PRE-BREACH AND FUTURE DAMAGES ........................................................ 1 SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT ............................................................................................. 2 ARGUMENT .................................................................................................................................. 3 I. NSP SEEKS TO RECOVER DAMAGES FOR A PARTIAL, RATHER THAN TOTAL, BREACH OF CONTRACT ....................................... 3 NSP CAN RECOVER ONLY FOR PARTIAL BREACHES THAT HAVE OCCURRED AS OF THE FILING OF ITS COMPLAINT ....................................................................................................... 4 A. DOE's Continuing Breaches Are Tied To The Failure To Accept SNF In Accordance With The Approved DCSs With Individual Utilities ............................................................................. 4 Performance In 2012 Has Not Been Established As An Independent Contractual Commitment Pursuant To The Standard Contract ...................................................................................... 9

II.

B.

III.

BECAUSE NSP SEEKS CONTINUED PERFORMANCE OF THE STANDARD CONTRACT, NSP CANNOT RECOVER DAMAGES FOR COSTS THAT WERE INCURRED PRIOR TO DOE'S PARTIAL BREACHES OF CONTRACT OR AFTER THE DATE THAT ITS COMPLAINT WAS FILED ........................... 11 A. The Measure Of Damages For A Partial Breach Of Contract Differs From That For A Total Breach Of Contract .................................................................................................... 11 Because NSP Has Elected To Pursue Damages For A Partial Breach Of Contract, Rather Than A Total Breach, It Cannot Recover Damages That Pre-Date The Actual Partial Breach ........................................................................................... 16 i

B.

Case 1:98-cv-00484-JPW

Document 235

Filed 08/24/2005

Page 3 of 7

TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) 1. Under A Partial Breach Claim, A Plaintiff Cannot Rely Upon An Anticipatory Partial Repudiation Theory To Recover Damages That Precede The Actual Partial Breach .................................................................... 16 NSP Cannot Circumvent The Legal Bar To Recovery Of Its Pre-Breach Damages By Formulating Them As Costs Incurred In The Exercise Of Its Duty Of Mitigation ............................................................................... 23

2.

C.

NSP Also Cannot Recover As Damages Costs Incurred After The Date That Its Complaint Was Filed .......................................... 26

IV.

BY REQUESTING THE ABILITY TO RETURN TO THE COURT WITH FUTURE CLAIMS, NSP RECOGNIZES THE LIMITATIONS UPON ITS ABILITY TO RECOVER FUTURE OR PROSPECTIVE DAMAGES ......................................................................... 32 NSP'S ATTEMPT TO MAKE ITS EXPERT REPORTS PART OF THE RECORD IN THIS CASE ARE PREMATURE ................................... 34

V.

CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................. 35

ii

Case 1:98-cv-00484-JPW

Document 235

Filed 08/24/2005

Page 4 of 7

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CASES Alyeska Pipeline Service Co. v. United States, 688 F.2d 765 (1982) .......................................................................................................... 32 Ammex, Inc. v. United States, 334 F.3d 1052 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ........................................................................................ 12 Barron Bancshares, Inc. v. United States, 366 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ........................................................................................ 15 Christopher Village, L.P. v. United States, 360 F.3d 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ........................................................................................ 12 Cities Service Helex, Inc. v. United States, 211 Ct. Cl. 222, 543 F.2d 1306 (1976) ................................................................. 15, 19, 22 City of Fairfax, Va. v. Washington Metro. Area Transit Auth., 582 F.2d 1321 (4th Cir. 1978), cert. denied, 440 U.S. 914 (1979) ............................. 19, 28 Coughlin v. Blair, 41 Cal. 2d 587, 262 P.2d 305 (1953) .......................................................................... 13, 30 Danzig v. AEC Corp., 224 F.3d 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2000) .................................................................................. 17, 18 Dittmore-Freimuth Corp. v. United States, 390 F.2d 664 (Ct. Cl. 1968) .............................................................................................. 23 Dunkin Donuts of Am., Inc. v. Minerva, Inc., 956 F.2d 1566 (11th Cir. 1992) ........................................................................................ 22 Everett Plywood Corp. v. United States, 206 Ct. Cl. 244, 512 F.2d 1082 (1975) ............................................................................. 33 Fraas Surgical Mfg. Co. v. United States, 215 Ct. Cl. 820, 571 F.2d 34 (1978) ................................................................................... 9 Franconia Assocs. v. United States, 536 U.S. 129 (2002) ................................................................................................ PASSIM

iii

Case 1:98-cv-00484-JPW

Document 235

Filed 08/24/2005

Page 5 of 7

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES (continued) Hansen Bancorp, Inc. v. United States, 53 Fed. Cl. 92 (2002), vacated and remanded on other grounds, 367 F.3d 1297 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ................................................................................................. 12, 15 Indiana Michigan Power Co. v. United States, 60 Fed. Cl. 639 (2004), appeal pending, No. 04-5122 (Fed. Cir. docketed July 24, 2004) .......................................................................................... PASSIM Kaiser v. Northwest Shopping Ctr., Inc., 587 S.W.2d 454 (Tex. Civ. Ct. 1979) ......................................................................... 27, 29 Keefe Co. v. Americable Int'l, Inc., 755 A.2d 469 (D.C. Ct. App. 2000) .................................................................................. 29 Lovink v. Guilford Mills, Inc., 878 F.2d 584 (2d Cir. 1989) ....................................................................................... 12, 15 Lucente v. IBM Corp., 310 F.3d 243 (2d Cir. 2002) ................................................................................. 19, 20, 21 Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) .......................................................................................................... 30 May v. Morganelli-Heumann & Assocs., 618 F.2d 1363 (9th Cir. 1980) .......................................................................................... 30 Middleton v. United States, 175 Ct. Cl. 786 (1966) ...................................................................................................... 24 Mobil Oil Exploration v. United States, 530 U.S. 604 (2000) .......................................................................................................... 12 Nager Electric Co. v. United States, 177 Ct. Cl. 234, 368 F.2d 847 (1966) ............................................................................... 33 Newman-Green, Inc. v. Alfonzo-Larrain, 490 U.S. 826 (1989) .......................................................................................................... 30 PVI, Inc. v. Ratiopharm, 253 F.3d 320 (8th Cir. 2001) ............................................................................................ 14 Pinewood Realty Ltd. P'ship v. United States, 223 Ct. Cl. 98, 617 F.2d 211 (1980) ........................................................................... 15, 22 iv

Case 1:98-cv-00484-JPW

Document 235

Filed 08/24/2005

Page 6 of 7

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES (continued) Quick v. American Steel & Pump Corp., 397 F.2d 561 (2d Cir. 1968) ............................................................................................. 30 Reynolds v. United States, 141 Ct. Cl. 211, 158 F. Supp. 719 (1958) ......................................................................... 16 Robinson v. United States, 305 F.3d 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2002) ........................................................................................ 23 Roboserve, Inc. v. Kato Kagaku Co., 78 F.3d 266 (7th Cir. 1996) .............................................................................................. 12 Roehm v. Horst, 178 U.S. 13 (1900) ............................................................................................................ 17 S&R Corp. v. Jiffy Lube Int'l, Inc., 968 F.2d 371 (3d Cir. 1992) ............................................................................................. 11 San Carlos Irrigation & Drainage Dist. v. United States, 23 Cl. Ct. 276 (1991), aff'd, 111 F.3d 1557 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ............................................................................ 12, 28, 29 Tennessee Valley Authority v. United States, 60 Fed. Cl. 665 (2004) .................................................................................... 25, 29, 31, 32 Tennessee Valley Authority v. United States, No. 01-249C (Fed. Cl. Aug. 12, 2004) ............................................................................. 25 Tretchick v. Department of Transportation, 109 F.3d 749 (Fed. Cir. 1997) .................................................................................... 17, 18 United States v. Dekonty Corp., 922 F.2d 826 (C.A. Fed. 1991) ......................................................................................... 18 United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. United States, 230 Ct. Cl. 355, 676 F.2d 622 (1982) ................................................................................. 9 Wisconsin Power & Light Co. v. Century Indem. Co., 130 F.3d 787 (7th Cir.1997) ............................................................................................. 17 Yankee Atomic Electric Co. v. United States, No. 98-126C, 2004 WL 1535688 (Fed. Cl. June 28, 2004) .................................... PASSIM

v

Case 1:98-cv-00484-JPW

Document 235

Filed 08/24/2005

Page 7 of 7

Young Engineers, Inc. v. United States Int'l Trade Comm'n, 721 F.2d 1305 (Fed. Cir. 1983) ........................................................................................ 12

STATUTES 10 C.F.R. § 961.11 (1983) .................................................................................................. PASSIM

vi