Katzin v. United States
124 Fed. Cl. 122
Fed. Cl.2015Background
- Plaintiffs (the Katzins) claim ownership of a ~65.5-acre parcel (Parcel 4) in Culebra, Puerto Rico, including the 10.01-acre Buena Vista Peninsula; the United States claims the peninsula and a 2.25-acre gun mount site as government property.
- The disputed title traces to Spanish crown grants and involves seaside reservations, maritime-zone questions, and Puerto Rico land‑registry/Latin‑notary records.
- Plaintiffs proffered Dennis Martinez, a Civil Law Latin Notary and attorney, as an expert to explain historical grants, seaside reservations, and the chain of title (report PX 420).
- The government moved in limine to exclude Martinez’s testimony as improper legal opinion under Fed. R. Evid. 702, relying on precedents excluding lawyers’ legal-opinion testimony.
- The government separately sought permission for Dr. Jorge Orbay (a nonparty witness based in Miami) to testify by video teleconference because travel to trial locations would impose substantial burden.
- The court heard that Martinez’s proffer mixes factual exposition of historical documents/systems with some legal analysis, while Orbay’s testimony would be brief and occur from a federal courthouse in Miami with safeguards present.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of Martinez’s expert testimony under Fed. R. Evid. 702 | Martinez provides specialized factual exposition of historical grants, not forbidden legal conclusions; his expertise will aid the court. | Martinez’s report gives legal opinions about Puerto Rican law and title and would improperly instruct the court on the law. | Denied—testimony permitted. Court found it primarily factual and helpful; any legal conclusions will not usurp the court’s role. |
| Whether Martinez’s testimony parallels excluded legal-opinion testimony in Stobie Creek and Thomas | Katzin says those precedents are distinguishable because Martinez focuses on factual-historical matters. | Govt. contends Martinez is like the attorneys whose legal-opinion testimony was excluded. | Court distinguished Stobie Creek/Thomas and allowed Martinez to testify. |
| Whether a nonparty witness (Dr. Orbay) may testify by videoconference under RCFC 43 | Katzin argues live testimony is preferred and videoconference impairs evaluation of demeanor; mere convenience is insufficient. | Govt. asserts travel would impose substantial burden on a Miami-based physician and videoconference from a federal courthouse with safeguards is appropriate. | Granted—RCFC 43 permits contemporaneous transmission for good cause; substantial burden and safeguards justified remote testimony. |
| Weight and safeguards for remote testimony | Katzin seeks live presence for credibility assessment. | Govt. will provide courthouse setting and court official presence to observe demeanor. | Court found safeguards adequate and remote testimony acceptable given travel burden. |
Key Cases Cited
- Stobie Creek Investments, LLC v. United States, 81 Fed. Cl. 358 (2008) (excluded attorneys’ legal-opinion testimony on title)
- Thomas v. United States, 106 Fed. Cl. 467 (2012) (barred expert legal opinions from counsel/attorneys)
- Burkhart v. Washington Metro. Area Transit Auth., 112 F.3d 1207 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (expert testimony that amounts to legal opinion is disfavored)
- Specht v. Jensen, 853 F.2d 805 (10th Cir. 1988) (court should exclude expert testimony expressing legal conclusions)
- Magnan v. Trammell, 719 F.3d 1159 (10th Cir. 2013) (permitting expert factual testimony in complex title disputes)
- Air Turbine Tech., Inc. v. Atlas Copco AB, 410 F.3d 701 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (discussing use of court’s discretion to permit remote testimony for nonparty witnesses)