Free Motion for Sanctions - Rule 37 - District Court of Federal Claims - federal

Case 1:01-cv-00201-VJW Document 148-7SANCTIONS Filed 02/23/2006 EXHIBIT E TO PLAINTIFFS' MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR

Page 1 of 4

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS _____________________ _____________________ ) CAROL AND ROBERT TES UI e a. TW DE, t l , ) ) P anif, lit s f ) ) v . ) ) ) THE UNI TED S TATESOFAM ERI CA, ) ) Dee d n. fn a t ) _____________________) _____________________

No 0 2 1. 1- 0 L Ho o a l VitrJ W os i n rbe co . lk

DEFENDANT' SUPPLEMENTAL ANSW ERS TO INTERROGATORIES S

Dee d n, h UntdS ae o Ameia b a dtr u hi u d rin dc u s l fn a t te i e tts f rc , y n h o g t n esg e o n e, s h rb rs o d t P anif'I tro ao is ee y e p n s o lit s ner g tre : f PRELIMINARY STATEMENT AND OBJ ECTIONS TO INSTRUCTIONS Th if r t np o ie i te ea s r t panif'ner g tre wa a s mbe e n o mai r vd d n h s n wes o lit s itro ao is s se ld o f b a to ie e ly e a dc u s l o teUntdS ae Na y S meo teif r t n y uh rz d mpo e s n o n e f r h i e tts v . o f h n o mai o s u h b panif c n en e e t ta o c re ma yy asa o tu ii dfiuti n t o g t y lit s o c r s v ns h t c u rd n e r g ,h s ts ifc l f o f , i o sbe t rtiv o rc n tu ts me o te if r t n rq e td b panif. mp sil o ere e r e o sr c o f h n o mai e u se y lit s o f Ac o dn l, ee d n rs r e terg toa n te ers o s si n w o mo ea c rt c r igy d fn a t e ev s h ih t me d h s e p n e f e r r c u ae if r t nb c me a albeo ier r aeds o ee .Dee d n rs o d t panif' n o mai e o s v i l rf ro s r ic v rd o a fn a te p n s o lit s f ds o eywi o t rjdc t d fn a tsrg torl a til ns b e u nl ds o ee ic v r t u p eu ie o ee d n' ih t ey tra o u s q e t ic v rd h y if r t no o if r t no t dia v re t a ars lo mitk , ro o o esg t n o mai r n n o mai mi e n d etnl s e ut f sa e er r r v rih. o o t y Dee d n o jcst panif'd fnt n t tee tn ta te atmp t i o e fn a t be t o lit s eii o s o h xe th th y t to mp s f i e o l ain whc aeb y n to ei o e b teRue o teUntd S ae Co r o bi t s ih r e o d h s mp s d y h g o ls f h i e tts u t f F d rlCli (RCF ). Dee d n f rh ro jcst panifsitro ao ist te e ea ams " C" fn a t u te be t o lit ' ner g tre o h f e tn te s e t i o ea u d eb r e , e kds o eyi voaino te atr e xe t h y e k o mp s n n u u d n s e ic v r n ilt o fh t n y o
1

Case 1:01-cv-00201-VJW

Document 148-7

Filed 02/23/2006

Page 2 of 4

to the discovery of admissible evidence. RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES INTERROGATORY NO. :State the date on which you allege that a six year statute of 3 limitations began to run as asserted in Paragraph 2 of your Affirmative Defenses. RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. : 3 Defendant objects on the grounds that this Interrogatory is improper because it calls for a legal conclusion. Without waving this objection, defendant states that the date the statute of limitations began to run will vary from tract to tract depending upon when, if at all, the tract was first exposed to prior operations that arguably constituted a taking. Defendant is unable to respond to this interrogatory until discovery is complete. INTERROGATORY NO.1 : Identify each study, document or report, the subject of 9 which is the effect of aircraft noise on the value of properties surrounding an airfield, performed by or for the United States Department of Defense, and/ any segment of that or Department, since and including January 1, 19 5and for each such document identify the 7 principal author(s) of each such document and state the location of each such study. RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 9 1: Defendant objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad, vague and ambiguous, and unduly burdensome, for instance with respect to "surrounding an airfield" and performed by the Department of Defense and/ any segment of that or Department. As a result of this overbreadth and ambiguity, the Interrogatory seeks information which is not limited or relevant to the allegations in the underlying lawsuit involving NAS-Oceana and NALF-Fentress. Defendant further objects to the extent this interrogatory calls for information which is protected by the attorney client privilege, the work product privilege or seeks confidential and proprietary information which is not
3

Case 1:01-cv-00201-VJW

Document 148-7

Filed 02/23/2006

Page 3 of 4

relevant to that decision.

2 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 4 : To the extent this Interrogatory requests
information which is subject to the attorney client privilege or the attorney work product privilege, defendant objects. Without waiving this objection, defendant responds that to the best of

defendant's knowledge, information and belief, there have been no formal studies or proposals which would be responsive to this Interrogatory. INTERROGATORY NO. 4 3: With respect to each witness whom you will or may call as an

expert in support of your motion for class certification, state the following: A. B. C, Name, address, and phone number; The field in which he or she is to be offered as an expert; A summary of the expert' qualifications within the field in which he or she is s expected to testify; D. The titles, dates and coauthors of any books, papers or articles authored by the expert in his or her field; E. F. The substance of the facts to which the expert is expected to testify; The substance of the opinions to which the expert is expected to testify and a summary of the grounds for each opinion including all facts, data, assumptions, studies and texts upon which you expect the expert to rely as a basis for such opinions and conclusion; and G. The titles and dates of preparation of all reports rendered by the expert.

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 4 3:
Defendant has not selected expert witnesses for this phase of the case but will identify its expert witnesses in accordance with the Court's pretrial schedule.

Dated this _____ day of July, 2004 Respectfully submitted,

12

Case 1:01-cv-00201-VJW

Document 148-7

Filed 02/23/2006

Page 4 of 4

______________________________ JULIA K. EVANS STEVEN D. BRYANT United States Department of Justice Environment and Natural Resources Div. General Litigation Section P.O. Box 6 3 6 Washington, DC 20044-06 3 6 (202) 514-448 5 Of Counsel: Robert J. Smith Mary S. Raival Navy Litigation Office 720 Kennon Street SE, Bldg. 36 Washington, D.C. 20374 CDR Dominick Yacono, JAGC, USN Commander Navy region, Mid-Atlanic, Code (00LE) 1510 Gilbert Street Norfolk, VA 23511-2737

13