Free Exhibit List - District Court of Federal Claims - federal

Case 1:01-cv-00201-VJW

Document 213-3

Filed 10/02/2006

Page 1 of 2

Quinn, Gordon & Wolf, Chtd.
Kieron F. Quinn Richard S. Gordon Martin E. Wolf 102 W. Pennsylvania Ave, Suite 402 Towson, Maryland 21204 Telephone (410) 825-2300 Facsimile (410) 825-0066

_____

[email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

Harford County Office 104 Victory Lane, Suite 100 Bel Air, Maryland 21014

September 28, 2006

Steve Bryant, Esq. General Litigation Section Environmental and Natural Resources Division United States Department of Justice P.O. Box 663 Washington, D.C. 20044 Re: Dear Steve: The conference of counsel under Section 13.a of the Rules concerning exhibits in this case was scheduled and did take place on August 10, 2006, by telephone at your insistence. The evening before that conference, Defendant submitted an extraordinary list of 780 exhibits. Because we obviously could not deal with objections on August 10, at that time we rescheduled a discussion on objections alone on August 16th. That conference on objections is mandated by the Rules. Prior to that time we exchanged detailed objections and we certified to the Court that what was required by Section 13.d had been accomplished by the parties. Notwithstanding that, Plaintiffs spent a good part of August trying to correct a significant number of mistakes in Defendant's Exhibit List. All of Plaintiffs' objections to Defendant's exhibits and all of the Government's objections to Plaintiffs' exhibits were known and exchanged before September 7. On September 12 we sent you the Joint Exhibit List and heard not one comment or objection on it until last night. The Joint Exhibit List sent to you on September 12 contains 146 exhibits, many of which individually exceed 100 pages. These documents must have joint exhibit stickers affixed, a requisite number of copies made and put in loose-leaf binders, and then delivered to the Clerk and to Judge Wolski. That process is slow and it has started. The same process has to be done for the exhibits nominated by each party but which are not joint. Our clients have been waiting for a trial for five and one half years. Plaintiffs' counsel and staff are heavily engaged in preparing to put on Plaintiffs' case and we are not going to Testwuide v. United States ­ Exhibit Lists

Case 1:01-cv-00201-VJW Steve Bryant September 28 Page 2

Document 213-3

Filed 10/02/2006

Page 2 of 2

divert attention from that to take up the latest demonstration that the Government has no idea how to deal with its own documents. This afternoon we will send Judge Wolski a copy of Plaintiffs' Exhibit List with the Defendant's objections or non-objections depicted, as that document existed on September 12. On October 2 we will send the Court the Joint Exhibit List we sent you on September 12. We are not going to file the document that you sent last night in which you raised objections to your own exhibits and a number of objections to Plaintiffs' exhibits which had never been raised before. We understand that you believe Judge Wolski approved your last minute maneuver. If that is so, then that will have to be indicated by ruling on a motion made by the Government. On August 10, you requested that Plaintiffs' "as soon as possible" make a written demand for settlement. We put considerable time, thought and effort into that proposal and provided it to you on August 16. Since that time, on a half dozen occasions, you have told me that the Government "has the matter under serious consideration" and "expects to respond to the Plaintiffs very soon". As I told you when we spoke in my office on September 13, the Government settled the Vivian's Island case in early 2005 involving two squadrons of the very same aircraft that were transferred from Cecil Field to Beaufort, South Carolina. The Plaintiffs had appraisers ­ the Government had appraisers. The Plaintiffs had experts ­ the Government had experts. We believe that the analysis and the bureaucratic hurdle jumping that would attend the settlement of the present case were necessarily in place in early 2005 when the Government settled Vivian's Island. The Government's complete failure to respond after insisting that Plaintiffs act immediately is an insult and leads us to the sad but unanimous conclusion that the Government is not conducting this case in good faith. Sincerely,

Kieron F. Quinn KFQ/djs