Scott Timber Co. v. United States

Federal Claims

Scott Timber Co. v. United States

82 Fed. Cl. 415, 2008 U.S. Claims LEXIS 260, 2008 WL 2513921

CourtUnited States Court of Federal Claims

DecidedJune 19, 2008

DocketNo. 05-708C

StatusPublished

This text of 82 Fed. Cl. 415 (Scott Timber Co. v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Court of Federal Claims primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Scott Timber Co. v. United States, 82 Fed. Cl. 415, 2008 U.S. Claims LEXIS 260, 2008 WL 2513921 (uscfc 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

LETTOW, Judge.

Defendant’s Fourth Motion In Limine, filed on June 10, 2008, requests that the court exclude from trial all evidence relating to the reported opinions in Heartwood, Inc. v. Forest Service, 73 F.Supp.2d 962 (S.D.Ill. 1999), and ONRC Action et al. v. Forest Service, 59 F.Supp.2d 1085 (W.D.Wash.1999). Defendant contends that because the reported opinions were entered in litigation in other courts involving different parties, plaintiff cannot employ them as substantive factual evidence. Plaintiff responds that it is not contending that facts and conclusions in the cited opinions are binding on this court but rather that it is “seeking to introduce the [416]*416opinions in these two cases to establish that in each ease a United States district court in an adversarial proceeding adjudicated on the administrative record, with full opportunity for the parties to present evidence and argument to the court, reached certain conclusions of fact and law.” Pl.’s Resp. to Def.’s Fourth Mot. In Limine at 2.

Federal Rule of Evidence 201 allows a court to take judicial notice of adjudicative facts. “A judicially noticed fact must be one not subject to reasonable dispute in that it is ... capable of accurate and ready determination by resort to sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.” Fed. R.Evid. 201(b). Judicially noticing the truth of factual findings in the reported decisions would amount to issue preclusion, and that conclusiveness would not be appropriate in this case. However, the outcome of, rather than particular facts found in, the cited cases is “capable of accurate and ready determination” through the court opinions, and thus the outcome is subject to judicial notice.

Accordingly, at trial the court may take judicial notice of the existence of the outcomes in the two district court opinions at issue. Defendant’s fourth motion in limine is therefore DENIED.

It is so ORDERED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

ORDER

LETTOW, Judge.

Defendant’s Fourth Motion In Limine, filed on June 10, 2008, requests that the court exclude from trial all evidence relating to the reported opinions in Heartwood, Inc. v. Forest Service, 73 F.Supp.2d 962 (S.D.Ill. 1999), and ONRC Action et al. v. Forest Service, 59 F.Supp.2d 1085 (W.D.Wash.1999). Defendant contends that because the reported opinions were entered in litigation in other courts involving different parties, plaintiff cannot employ them as substantive factual evidence. Plaintiff responds that it is not contending that facts and conclusions in the cited opinions are binding on this court but rather that it is “seeking to introduce the [416]*416opinions in these two cases to establish that in each ease a United States district court in an adversarial proceeding adjudicated on the administrative record, with full opportunity for the parties to present evidence and argument to the court, reached certain conclusions of fact and law.” Pl.’s Resp. to Def.’s Fourth Mot. In Limine at 2.

Federal Rule of Evidence 201 allows a court to take judicial notice of adjudicative facts. “A judicially noticed fact must be one not subject to reasonable dispute in that it is ... capable of accurate and ready determination by resort to sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.” Fed. R.Evid. 201(b). Judicially noticing the truth of factual findings in the reported decisions would amount to issue preclusion, and that conclusiveness would not be appropriate in this case. However, the outcome of, rather than particular facts found in, the cited cases is “capable of accurate and ready determination” through the court opinions, and thus the outcome is subject to judicial notice.

Accordingly, at trial the court may take judicial notice of the existence of the outcomes in the two district court opinions at issue. Defendant’s fourth motion in limine is therefore DENIED.

It is so ORDERED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

82 Fed. Cl. 415, 2008 U.S. Claims LEXIS 260, 2008 WL 2513921, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/scott-timber-co-v-united-states-uscfc-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack