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

Case 1:96-cv-00408-LAS

Document 169

Filed 05/09/2008

Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS INNOVAIR AVIATION LIMITED, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

No. 96-408C (Judge Smith)

DEFENDANT'S REPLY TO PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND EXHIBIT A AND DEFENDANT'S POST-TRIAL APPENDIX Defendant respectfully replies to plaintiff's response to defendant's motion for leave to amend Exhibit A and defendant's post-trial appendix. In its response brief, plaintiff, Innovair Aviation Ltd. ("Innovair"), states that it does not object to the Government's motion to correct typographical and clerical errors in Exhibit A and in the Government's post-trial appendix. However, Innovair objects to the Government's characterization of Exhibit A as an exhibit and contends that it is not admissible summary of evidence under Federal Rule of Evidence 1006. Contrary to Innovair's contention, the Government never intended the Court to treat Exhibit A as an evidentiary exhibit. As is evident from the document itself, Exhibit A addresses the arguments that Innovair makes on pages 21 through 34 of its initial post-trial brief, dated December 17, 2007. The first column on the left of Exhibit A identifies the country or region of the world at issue and it indicates where in Innovair's brief Innovair's arguments can be found. The second column indicates the Government's response to Innovair's arguments and it cites the trial transcript and/or the trial exhibits in support of the Government's response. Just as Innovair sets forth its arguments on pages 21 through 34 of its initial post-trial brief, so, too, the Government sets forth its arguments on pages 1 through 3 of Appendix A. The Government

Case 1:96-cv-00408-LAS

Document 169

Filed 05/09/2008

Page 2 of 3

never intended for the Court to treat Exhibit A as a trial exhibit. Therefore, no basis exists for the Court to strike Exhibit A. For the reasons contained here and in our initial request, we respectfully request that the Court (1) grant our motion for leave to amend Exhibit A and defendant's post-trial appendix, and (2) deny Innovair's motion to strike Exhibit A. Respectfully submitted, GREGORY G. KATSAS Assistant Attorney General

/s/ Jeanne E. Davidson JEANNE E. DAVIDSON Director

/s/ Sheryl L. Floyd SHERYL L. FLOYD Senior Trial Counsel Commercial Litigation Branch Civil Division Department of Justice Attn: Classification Unit, 8th Floor 1100 L Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20530 Tele: (202) 616-8278 Attorneys for Defendant MAY 9, 2008

-2-

Case 1:96-cv-00408-LAS

Document 169

Filed 05/09/2008

Page 3 of 3

CERTIFICATE OF FILING I hereby certify that on this 9th day of MAY, 2008, a copy of this "DEFENDANT'S REPLY TO PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND EXHIBIT A AND DEFENDANT'S POST-TRIAL APPENDIX" was filed e1ectronically. I understand that notice of this filing will be sent to all parties by operation of the Court's electronic filing system. Parties may access this filing, through the Court's system.

/s/ Sheryl L. Floyd