Free Joint Status Report - District Court of Federal Claims - federal

Case 1:98-cv-00726-EJD

Document 177

Filed 10/20/2005

Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS ______________________________________________________________________________

GRASS VALLEY TERRACE, a California Limited Partnership, et al.,
Plaintiffs, v. THE UNITED STATES Defendant. ______________________________________________________________________________ File No. 98-726C and consolidated cases (Chief Judge Edward J. Damich)

JOINT STATUS REPORT Pursuant to the Court's Order of September 30, 2005, the parties respectfully submit the following Joint Status Report concerning their progress with respect to the potential for settlement in this case. Since the filing of the parties' last Joint Status Report on September 14, 2005, counsel for the parties have conducted numerous telephone conversations concerning settlement of this case, certain related cases that have been referred to Alternative Dispute Resolution ("ADR") under the Court's ADR pilot program, and more than 100 other related cases filed since August 2004 that have been stayed pending the ADR proceedings. In addition, counsel have engaged in extensive consultation with the parties' respective experts in order to analyze and respond to proposed damage calculation models that the parties had previously exchanged, particularly with respect to this case. And, on October 17, 2005, the parties participated in a telephone status conference with Judge Horn (the ADR judge for most of the cases that have been referred to ADR), in which the parties discussed settlement of this case as well as the cases in ADR. As indicated in the parties' last Joint Status Report, between mid-August and mid-

Case 1:98-cv-00726-EJD

Document 177

Filed 10/20/2005

Page 2 of 3

September 2005, the parties had completed their first exchange of damages analyses, were working to resolve what appeared to be certain discrepancies between the parties' analyses as to the damages models being employed by each party and the proper documentation to be utilized as support for the analyses, and had agreed to engage in further document exchanges and to prepare additional analyses in an attempt to ensure that future analyses conducted as part of this process are performed in a consistent manner. Accordingly, since the filing of the last Joint Status Report, the parties have continued to engage in the latter effort, and have made further progress. This included telephone conferences on September 21, 2005, September 23, 2005, September 28, 2005, and October 3, 2005, and e-mail communications on September 26, 2005 and October 12, 2005. Most recently, the Government transmitted a set of proposed damage calculations to plaintiffs electronically on October 16, 2005. These calculations were referred to in the October 17, 2005 status conference with Judge Horn, but their substance was not discussed at that time because plaintiffs' counsel had not yet had an opportunity to study them or to discuss them with plaintiffs' expert or with Government counsel. Further, because both plaintiffs' counsel and Government counsel have each been away from their offices for substantial portions of the week of October 17, they have not had sufficient opportunity to discuss these calculations since that date. However, counsel for plaintiffs are currently in the process of reviewing and analyzing those materials. Counsel for the parties are scheduled to meet in person to discuss settlement of this case and the cases in ADR on November 9, 2005, and to participate in another status conference with Judge Horn on November 14, 2005. Although the parties intend to confer between now and November 9 as well, the opportunity to do so will be limited, because Government counsel will be overseas for discovery in A.A.B, Joint Venture v. United States, Nos. 04-1719C, 04-1792C, 2

Case 1:98-cv-00726-EJD

Document 177

Filed 10/20/2005

Page 3 of 3

05-114C (Fed. Cl.), from October 24 through November 1, 2005. The parties believe that the efforts described above should continue. Although this approach may take more time than would be required to settle one or a few individual claims in this case, it is nevertheless more efficient and productive than attempting to settle claims in isolation. To the extent that the parties are able to reach agreement concerning methodological issues and economic data relevant to claims at issue in this case, they may be able to provide a methodology for evaluating potential settlement not only of the claims in this case, but also of claims involved in the related cases. Respectfully submitted, PETER D. KEISLER Assistant Attorney General s/ David M. Cohen DAVID M. COHEN Director s/ Jeff H. Eckland JEFF H. ECKLAND Eckland & Blando LLP 700 Lumber Exchange 10 South Fifth Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 Tele: (612) 305-4444 Fax: (612) 305-4439 Attorney for Plaintiff s/ Shalom Brilliant SHALOM BRILLIANT Senior Trial Counsel Commercial Litigation Branch Civil Division Department of Justice 1100 L Street, N.W. Attn: Classification Unit Room 8012 Washington, D.C. 20530 Tele: (202) 305-7561 Fax: (202) 305-7643 Attorneys for Defendant

Filed Electronically with the Consent of the Attorney for Plaintiff October 20, 2005

3