Free Motion for Leave to File - District Court of Federal Claims - federal

Case 1:92-cv-00580-EJD

Document 322

Filed 03/17/2008

Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS SPARTON CORPORATION, Plaintiff, ) ) ) v. ) ) THE UNITED STATES, Defendant. ) ) Chief Judge Damich No. 92-580

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE DEFENDANT'S FIRST AMENDED RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION IN LIMINE [DOCKET NO. 295] The United States herein moves for leave to file an amended copy of "Defendant's Response to Plaintiff's Motion in Limine [Docket No. 295]" (Defendant's Response), filed on February 4, 2008. This is the first such amendment. The amended brief corrects the penultimate paragraph of page 2 of Defendant's Response. That paragraph currently reads (with the incorrect citations underlined for emphasis): On June 27, 2006, the Government amended its earlier answers and objection to provide a more complete explanation of the government's license defense. Exhibit 4. In doing so, however, the government also maintained its objection that it need only provide a summary of the defense because RCFC 26(b)(3) and the Work Product Doctrine exempted the government from fully responding as to "specifically how such evidence establishes the existence of an implied licence or right to use/manufacture," as requested in the first interrogatory. P295.4. In that answer the government added: "With respect to the `120 patent, the Government may also assert a defense of lawful right based solely on the contractual provisions of Contract No. N00019-70-C-0133." P295.5. The paragraph is correct, except for the citations. However, the second sentence is tangential to the argument being made, would require an additional exhibit to be fully developed and,

1

Case 1:92-cv-00580-EJD

Document 322

Filed 03/17/2008

Page 2 of 3

therefore, is best deleted. And a copy of the June 27, 2006 interrogatory answers should have been included as an attachment to Defendant's Response, as the document cited in the paragraph. As a result, the paragraph should be corrected to read (corrected citations underlined for emphasis): On June 27, 2006, the Government amended its earlier answers to provide a more complete explanation of the government's license defense. Exhibit 1. In that answer the government added: "With respect to the `120 patent, the Government may also assert a defense of lawful right based solely on the contractual provisions of Contract No. N00019-70-C-0133." Id. at A2. The attached "Defendant's First Amended Response to Plaintiff's Motion In Limine [Docket No. 295]" makes the corrections noted above and attaches the first amended answers. We have also corrected typographical errors on page 1 (adding "its" in the second line of the second paragraph) and on page 4 (adding "the" in the first line of the first full paragraph). No other changes are made to the text of the brief.

2

Case 1:92-cv-00580-EJD

Document 322

Filed 03/17/2008

Page 3 of 3

For the reasons stated, defendant respectfully requests that its motion be granted and that the attached "Defendant's First Amended Response to Plaintiff's Motion In Limine [Docket No. 295]" be filed. Respectfully submitted, JEFFREY S. BUCHOLTZ Acting Assistant Attorney General JOHN FARGO Director s/Gary L. Hausken GARY L. HAUSKEN Attorney Commercial Litigation Branch Civil Division Department of Justice Washington, D. C. 20530 Telephone: (202) 307-0342 Facsimile: (202) 307-0345 March 17, 2008 Attorneys for Defendant, United States

3