Free Motion for Miscellaneous Relief - District Court of Federal Claims - federal

Case 1:95-cv-00524-GWM

Document 389

Filed 09/25/2007

Page 1 of 6

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

HOMER J. HOLLAND, STEVEN BANGERT, co-executor of the ESTATE OF HOWARD R. ROSS, AND FIRST BANK Plaintiffs, v. THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant.

No. 95-524 C (Judge G. Miller)

PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO INTRODUCE AT TRIAL THE DEPOSITION TESTIMONY OF CERTAIN GOVERNMENT AGENTS AND DECEASED FACT WITNESSES Pursuant to the Rules of the Court of Federal Claims ("RCFC") Appendix A, ¶15(b) and this Court's Order of March 20, 2007, Plaintiffs hereby respectfully move for leave to introduce as substantive evidence at trial portions of the deposition testimony of government officials (1) Lawrence Kenny, (2) Ronald Karr, (3) Diana Januska, and (4) Larry Ferries, and deceased fact witnesses (5) Leo B. Blaber and (6) Howard R. Ross. "Use of depositions as substantive evidence is normal in federal practice." Ueland v. United States, 291 F.3d 993, 996 (7th Cir. 2002) (Easterbrook, J). This is particularly so under circumstances where the deposition offered as evidence is the testimony of an opposing party or its agent, or the testimony of the deceased. See RCFC 32(a)(3)(A); Fed. R. Evid. 801(d); Long Island Savings Bank, FSB v. United States, 63 Fed. Cl. 157, 162-165 (2004) (in Winstar case, permitting for use at trial as substantive evidence deposition excerpts of government thrift regulators); Globe Savings Bank, FSB v. United States, 61 Fed. Cl. 91, 96 (2004) (same).

Case 1:95-cv-00524-GWM

Document 389

Filed 09/25/2007

Page 2 of 6

The Federal Rules of Evidence allow the introduction of deposition testimony of "party opponents," providing that " [a] statement is not hearsay if... [t]he statement is offered against a party and is ... a statement by the party's agent or servant concerning a matter within the scope of the agency or employment, made during the existence of the relationship...." Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2)(D). "It is a `widely accepted rule that admissions of a party-opponent under Rule 801(d)(2)(D) are accorded generous treatment in determinations of admissibility.'" Globe, 61 Fed. Cl. at 96-97 (quoting Aliotta v. National R.R. Passenger Corp., 315 F.3d 756, 761 (7th Cir. 2003)). With respect to party opponents, no showing that a witness is unavailable to testify personally at trial is prerequisite to the introduction of that witness's deposition testimony as substantive evidence. Long Island, 63 Fed. Cl. at 163. Indeed, "the common law's preference for live testimony has no bearing on the use of party admissions as evidence." Long Island, 63 Fed. Cl. at 163. Here, Plaintiffs seek to introduce as substantive evidence at trial portions of the deposition testimony of several current or former government officials, all of whom were employed by Defendant at the time of their depositions, and all of whom testified concerning matters squarely within the scope of their employment: 1. Lawrence Kenny At the time of his deposition in February and March 2004, Mr. Kenny was a capital markets specialist with the OTS central regional office in Chicago. The portions of Mr. Kenny's deposition testimony submitted for inclusion as substantive evidence concern his experience as a regulator assigned to examine River Valley's capital markets investments. See Ex. 1 (Kenny Deposition Testimony Excerpts).

2

Case 1:95-cv-00524-GWM

Document 389

Filed 09/25/2007

Page 3 of 6

2.

Ronald Karr At the time of his deposition in July and August 2000, Mr. Karr was the director

of the OTS central regional office in Chicago. The portions of Mr. Karr's deposition testimony submitted for inclusion as substantive evidence concern his experience supervising River Valley's regulation by the OTS. See Ex. 2 (Karr Deposition Testimony Excerpts). 3. Diana Januska At the time of her deposition in August 2000, Ms. Januska was a policy analyst for the Federal Home Loan Bank of Chicago. The portions of Ms. Januska's deposition testimony submitted for inclusion as substantive evidence concern her experience in evaluating for the government the terms of River Valley's acquisition of the Galva, Home, and Mutual institutions. See Ex. 3 (Januska Deposition Testimony Excerpts). 4. Larry Ferries At the time of his August 2000 deposition, Mr. Ferries was a field manager in the OTS central regional office in Chicago. The portions of Mr. Ferries' deposition testimony submitted for inclusion as substantive evidence concern his work as the FHLBB and OTS examiner principally responsible for supervising River Valley. See Ex. 4 (Ferries Deposition Testimony Excerpts). The portions of the deposition testimony submitted for each of these individuals satisfies all requirements for admissible party admissions under Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(2): all testimony submitted is (1) "offered against" Defendant, and (2) constitutes "statements by [Defendant's] agent[s] or servants[s]," (3) " concerning a matter within the scope of the agency or employment" (4) "made during the existence of the relationship." See also

3

Case 1:95-cv-00524-GWM

Document 389

Filed 09/25/2007

Page 4 of 6

Globe, 61 Fed. Cl. at 97 (setting forth requirements for party admissions); Aliotta, 315 F.3d at 761 (same). The fact that these witnesses may also be called upon by the government to provide live testimony has "no bearing" on whether their deposition testimony may be used as evidence. Long Island, 63 Fed. Cl. at 163. "`The general rule that the witness must be shown unavailable for testifying in court does not apply to a party's use of his party-opponent's deposition...-for the simple reason that every statement of an opponent may be used against him as an admission without calling him ...; the opponent's sworn statement, though called a deposition, is no less an admission than any other statement of his. Globe, 61 Fed. Cl. at 95 (quoting 5 Wigmore on Evidence § 1415, at 243) (emphasis in original). Accordingly, Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court admit for use as substantive testimony at trial the deposition testimony of government agents Kenny, Karr, Januska and Ferries designated in Exhibits 1-4 attached hereto. Separately, Court of Federal Claims Rule 32(a)(3)(A) provides that "[t]he deposition of a witness, whether or not a party, may be used by any party for any purpose if the court finds ... that the witness is dead." In accordance with this rule, Plaintiffs here submit for use as substantive evidence at trial portions of the deposition testimony of two deceased fact witnesses whose testimony is important and relevant to Plaintiffs' damages claims: the deceased former Federal Home Loan Bank of Chicago principal supervisory agent Leo B. Blaber, and the late Plaintiff Howard R. Ross. See Exs. 5 & 6.

4

Case 1:95-cv-00524-GWM

Document 389

Filed 09/25/2007

Page 5 of 6

Respectfully submitted,

Of Counsel: Melvin C. Garbow Howard N. Cayne Michael A. Johnson Joshua P. Wilson ARNOLD & PORTER, LLP 555 Twelfth Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20004-1206 Co-counsel for First Bank: Donald J. Gunn, Jr., Esq. Sharon R. Wice, Esq. Gunn and Gunn First Bank Building Creve Coeur 11901 Olive Blvd., Suite 312 P.O. Box 419002 St. Louis, Missouri 63141 (314) 432-4550 (tel.) (314) 432-4489 (fax)

/s/ David B. Bergman David B. Bergman ARNOLD & PORTER, LLP 555 Twelfth Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20004-1206 (202) 942-5000 (tel.) (202) 942-5999 (fax) Counsel for plaintiffs Holland and Ross and First Bank.

Dated:

September 25, 2007

5

Case 1:95-cv-00524-GWM

Document 389

Filed 09/25/2007

Page 6 of 6

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on this 25th day of September 2007, I caused the foregoing Plaintiffs' Motion To Introduce At Trial The Deposition Testimony Of Certain Government Agents And Deceased Fact Witnesses to be filed electronically. I understand that notice of this filing will be sent to all parties by operation of the Court's electronic filing system.

Dated: September 25, 2007

/s/ Joshua P. Wilson Joshua P. Wilson