Grand Acadian, Inc. v. United States
101 Fed. Cl. 398
Fed. Cl.2011Background
- On Apr. 15, 2011, the court filed a scheduling order governing remaining pretrial proceedings.
- Pretrial disclosures were filed on July 29, 2011, including lists of exhibits, witnesses, and deposition designations.
- Uncontested motions filed Aug. 15, 2011 sought deposition testimony, surcharges for long-distance subpoenas, and live testimony out of time.
- A series of objections and contested motions in limine were briefed and argued by the parties.
- The parties met and conferred to narrow disputes, producing joint status reports (JSR I and II).
- The court ruled on objections and motions, addressing admissibility of testimony, exhibits, and expert materials.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Relevance of property value evidence | Value evidence is irrelevant to remaining issues. | Fair market value supports fraud counterclaims and tree replacement cost reasonableness. | Evidence of fair market value is not relevant under the law of the case. |
| Admissibility of GSA DX 1 (Pricing Memo) | DX 1 contains improper lay opinion and is untimely; irrelevant to FMV. | DX 1 is based on lay observations and relevant to fraud claims. | DX 1 is not admissible for FMV purposes. |
| Undisclosed experts and their documents | Five witnesses/experts should be permitted to testify or have their documents admitted. | Those witnesses were undisclosed experts; testimony should be limited or excluded. | Hudson and Fontenot testimony may be admitted; Hatley, Shanks, Johnson testimonies and their documents are excluded. |
| May 2006 Freese & Nichols Report admissibility | May 2006 report is admissible for factual and cost information via Bosecker live testimony. | May 2006 report is hearsay and not admissible as substantive evidence. | May 2006 report is inadmissible hearsay. |
| Admissibility of Bosecker's live expert testimony | Bosecker testimony is relevant and reliable under Rule 702. | Bosecker's methods are unreliable and irrelevant to pre-lease conditions. | Bosecker's testimony is admissible; weight to be decided at trial. |
Key Cases Cited
- Grand Acadian, Inc. v. United States, 87 Fed.Cl. 193 (Fed. Cl. 2009) (damages limited; restoration beyond FMV possible under lease terms)
- Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (S. Ct. 1999) (gatekeeping for expert testimony; reliable foundation and relevance)
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., 509 U.S. 579 (S. Ct. 1993) (reliability and relevance test for expert evidence)
- United States v. Hale, 422 U.S. 171 (U.S. 1975) (prior inconsistent statements may impeach credibility)
- United States v. Rodriguez-Berrios, 573 F.3d 55 (1st Cir. 2009) (prior statements and impeachment considerations)