St. Bernard Parish Government v. United States

121 Fed. Cl. 747, 2015 U.S. Claims LEXIS 524, 2015 WL 2060296

Opinion

Federal Rules of Evidence; Rule of the United States Court of Federal Claims (“RCFC”) 26 (General provisions governing discovery).

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND FINAL ORDER ON EVIDENTIARY ISSUES

SUSAN G. BRADEN Judge

From December 12, 2011 to December 15, 2011, the court convened a trial in New Orleans, Louisiana. 12/12/11-12/15/11 TR 1-1236. The exhibits identified in this Order were introduced and comprise the record as to liability. The court’s rulings regarding evidentiary issues are discussed herein.

I. DOCUMENTS PROFFERED BY THE PARTIES WITHOUT OBJECTION THAT THE COURT RULES ARE ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE.

A. Plaintiffs’ Trial Exhibits. 1

1. Plaintiffs’ SPX Exhibits.

[[Image here]]

2. Robinson Exhibits.

DX-1; DX-1104; JX-195.

C.Plaintiffs’ Written Direct Testimony.

Dkt. No. 158 (Suhayda); Dkt. No. 159 ' (Kemp).

D.The Government’s Written Direct Testimony.

Dkt. No. 160 (Britsch); Dkt. No. 161 (Resio).

E.Plaintiffs’ Deposition Designations. 2

[[Image here]]

F. The Government’s Deposition Designations.

[[Image here]]

G. The Court’s Resolution.

The court rules that the documents referenced herein, at Section I, are admitted into evidence. See Court Exhibit A § I.

II. DOCUMENTS PROFFERED BY PLAINTIFFS, TO WHICH THE GOVERNMENT OBJECTS. 3

A. Plaintiffs’ Trial Exhibits.

1. Plaintiffs’ SPX Exhibits.

a. Interagency Performance Evaluation Task Force, Independent Levee Investigations Team, And Team Louisiana Exhibits.

Plaintiffs proffered twenty-nine exhibits, consisting of reports and associated documents prepared by the Interagency Performance Evaluation Task Force (“IPET”), the Independent Levee Investigations Team (“ILIT”), and Team Louisiana. Dkt. No. 178-1, at 1-3. The Government objects to twenty-five 4 of these exhibits in their entirety on relevance and hearsay grounds. Dkt. No. 178-1, at 1-3. The Government also objects to the admission of two exhibits as whole documents, but does not object to the admission of portions actually discussed with the witness. Dkt. No. 178-1, at 1-2 (objecting to SPX.0010 and SPX.0023). 5

As to relevance, the IPET, ILIT, and Team Louisiana exhibits are reports that discuss why the Southeast Louisiana’s Hurricane Protection System (“HPS”) failed. See, e.g., SPX.0001, at 1-1; SPX.0027, at PDF 2, xix; SPX.0029, at i. The court rules that these exhibits. are relevant, because they “ha[ve] a tendency to make a fact more or less probable” and “the fact is of consequence in determining the action.” Fed. R. Evid. 401; see also Fed. R. Evid. 402 (stating that “relevant evidence is admissible”). 6

As to hearsay, 7 these exhibits are evaluations of the HPS by groups commissioned by the Army Corps. See, e.g., SPX. 0001, at 1-1 (“IPET was established by the Chief of [the Army Corps of] Engineers [“Army Corps”] to determine the facts concerning the performance of the HPS in New Orleans and Southeast Louisiana during Hurricane Katrina.”); SPX.0027, at PDF 2, xix (The ILIT was funded by grants from the National Science Foundation, and the ILIT “report presents the results of an investigation of the performance of the New Orleans regional flood protection system during Hurricane Katrina[.]”); SPX.0029, at i (Team Louisiana was “commissioned ... by the Louisiana Department of .Transportation and-Development ... to assemble a team of Louisiana-based academic and private sector ex■perts to collect forensic data related to the failure of the levee systems around greater New Orleans that occurred during ... Hurricane Katrinaf.]”) (internal quotation marks omitted)... For these reasons, the court rules that these twenty-five exhibits are public records and business records, and therefore are exempt from hearsay. See Fed. R. Evid. 803(8) 8 ; Fed. R. Evid. 803(6). 9

For these reasons, the court rules that the IPET, ILIT, and Team Louisiana reports and associated documents are admitted. See Court Exhibit A § II.Al.a.

b. United States Army Corps Of Engineers Exhibits.

Plaintiffs proffered 217 exhibits, consisting of reports, studies, design memoranda, emails, reconnaissance reports, and Flood Safety Program documents from the Army Corps. Dkt. No. 178-1, at 3-19. The Government objects to the admission of 212 of these exhibits in their entirety 10 and to portions of SPX.0169. Dkt. No. 178-1, at 3-19; see also Dkt. No. 178-1, at 7 (objecting to SPX.0169). The Government objects to these exhibits on the grounds of: relevance; eumulativeness; hearsay; waiver; and/or objection sustained at trial. The court addresses each of these categories.

The Government objects to 202 of these exhibits on relevance grounds. Dkt. No. 178-1, at 3-19. These exhibits include reports and studies, either conducted by the Army Corps or commissioned by the Army Corps, and Army Corps’ design memoranda, emails, Flood Safety Program documents, and other similar exhibits. Dkt. No. 178-1, at 3-19. In addition, the exhibits discuss the Mississippi River-Gulf Outlet channel (“MR- GO”), the ecosystem of Southeast Louisiana, flood protection systems, and the effects of the flooding events. Dkt. No. 178-1, at 3-19. Therefore, the court rules that these exhibits are relevant, because they “ha[ve] a tendency to make a fact more or less probable” and “the fact is of consequence in determining the action.” Fed. R. Evid. 401; see also Fed. R. Evid. 402 (stating that “relevant evidence is admissible”).

The Government objects to 172 of these exhibits on the grounds that they are cumulative. Dkt. No. 178-1, at 3-19. Although Federal Rule of Evidence 403 grants the court discretion to exclude evidence for efficiency, it does not require the exelusion of otherwise relevant evidence. 11 Therefore, the court rules that the “probative value” of these exhibits is not “substantially outweighed by [the] danger of ... needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.” Fed. R. Evid. 403.

The Government objects to thirty-nine of these exhibits on hearsay grounds. Dkt. No. 1781, at 5-7,16-17. Twenty-nine of these objections relate to Army Corps’ emails that .discuss MR-GO, the Southeast Louisiana ecosystem, Hurricane Katrina related litigation, and other relevant topics. Dkt. No. 178-1, at 16-17. The court rules that these emails are admissible under the opposing party’s statement exclusion and under the business records exception to the hearsay prohibition. See Fed. R. Evid. 801(d) (opposing party’s statement exclusion) 12 ; Fed. R. Evid. 803(6) (business records exception).

The other ten hearsay objections relate to the Army Corps’ reports and studies. Dkt. No. 178-1, at 5-7. The court rules that these studies are admissible under the public records exception, the business records exception, and the opposing party’s statement exclusion to the hearsay prohibition. See Fed. R. Evid. 803(8) (public records exception); Fed. R. Evid.803(6) (business records exception); Fed. R. Evid. 801(d) (opposing party’s statement exclusion).

The Government objects to SPX.0134, because its objection to this exhibit was sustained at .trial. Dkt. No. 178-1, at 5; 12/13/11 TR at 524-25 (Kemp Redirect). The court rules that SPX.0134 is not admissible.

Finally, the Government renewed its objections to SPX.0226, SPX.0255, and SPX.0256 that were raised at trial. Dkt. No. 178-1, at 11,13; see also 12/13/11 TR at 509-11 (Kemp Redirect) (objecting on the grounds that the documents were not discussed during cross-examination). The court denied the Government’s objection. 12/13/11 TR at 510, 513 (statement by the court that the' scope of Plaintiffs’ questions was “fair” and that “we’ve touched upon this in the cross-examination”). Therefore, the court rules that SPX.0226, SPX.0255, and SPX.0256 are admissible.

For these reasons, the court rules that the Army Corps' exhibits are admitted. See Court Exhibit A § II.Al.b. 13

c. Federal Emergency Management Agency Documents And Related Materials.

Plaintiffs proffered fifty-nine Federal Emergency Management Agency (“FEMA”) documents and related materials and one United States Geological Survey (“USGS”) document, to which the Government objects on the grounds of relevance and cumulativeness. Dkt. No. 1781, at 19-22. 14

The fífty-nine FEMA and one USGS exhibits to which the Government objects include flood response and insurance information, maps of the affected area, and wetlands valuation information. Dkt. No. 178-1, at 19-22. Therefore, the court rules that these exhibits are relevant, because they “ha[ve] a tendency to make a fact more or less probable,” and “the fact is of consequence in determining the action.” Fed. R. Evid.401; see also Fed. R. Evid. 402 (stating that “relevant evidence is admissible”). The court also rules that the “probative value” of these exhibits is not “substantially outweighed by [the] danger of ... needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.” Fed. R. Evid. 403.

For these reasons, the court rules that the FEMA and USGS exhibits are admitted. See Court Exhibit A § II.A.l.c.

d. Robinson Expert Reports.

Plaintiffs proffered seventeen expert reports from Robinson. Dkt. No. 178-1, at 22-25. The Government objects to fifteen of these exhibits, all on hearsay grounds, and to two under RCFC 26. Dkt. No. 178-1, at 22-25. 15 The court will address these exhibits in Section II.A.2 below.

e. Plaintiffs’ Expert Declarations, Reports, And Materials Cited.

Plaintiffs proffered thirty-four expert declarations, reports, and materials cited. Dkt. No. 178-1, at 26-29. The Government objects to thirty-two 16 of these exhibits on the following grounds: Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 113 S.Ct. 2786, 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993); hearsay; and RCFC 26.

The Government objects to five of these exhibits under Daubert. In Daubert, the United States Supreme Court abolished the “general acceptance” precondition to the admissibility of scientific evidence. See 509 U.S. at 597, 113 S.Ct. 2786 (“To summarize: ‘General Acceptance’ is not a necessary precondition to the admissibility of scientific evidence under the Federal Rules of Evidence, but the Rules of Evidence—especially Rule 702—do assign to the trial judge the task of ensuring that an expert’s testimony both rests on a reliable foundation and is relevant to the task at hand. Pertinent evidence based on scientifically valid principles will satisfy those demands.”); see also id. at 593-94, 113 S.Ct. 2786 (identifying four nonexclusive factors for the court to consider: (1) “whether it can be (and has been) tested”; (2) “whether the theory or technique has been subjected to peer review and publication”; (3) “the known or potential rate of error”; and (4) the general acceptance in the scientific community). Daubert and its progeny prompted a revision of Federal Rule of Evidence 702. See Fed. R. Evid. 702 Advisory Committee notes (2000) (“Rule 702 has been amended in response to Daubert, ... and to many eases applying Daubert [.]”); see also Fed. R. -Evid. 702. 17

These five exhibits include: the August 16, 2006 Sworn Declaration of Dr. G. Paul Kemp 18 ; the August 12, 2011 Expert Report of Dr. Kemp; a MR-GO chronology prepared by Dr. Kemp; the July 1, 2011' Sworn Declaration of Dr. Joseph N. Suhay-da 19 ; and the August 12, 2011 Expert Report of Dr. Suhayda. Dkt. No. 178-1, at 26. 20 Drs. Kemp and Suhayda have extensive educational qualifications and professional experience in relevant fields. 12/12/11 TR at 188-200 (explaining Dr. Kemp’s educational and professional qualifications, experience in post-Hurricane Katrina investigations, and his prior testimony in Robinson); 12/13/11 TR at 657-66 (explaining Dr. Suhay-da’s educational and professional qualifications, experience in post-Hurricane Katrina investigations, and his prior testimony in other hurricane litigation). Therefore, the court rules that Drs. Kemp and Suhayda are qualified as expert witnesses under Daubert and that their testimony: “will help the trier of fact to understand the evidence”; “is based on sufficient facts or data”; “is the product of reliable principles and methods”; and “the expert has reliably applied the prin-eiples and methods to the facts[.]” Fed. R. Evid. 702.

The Government also objects to thirty-two of these documents on hearsay grounds. Dkt. No. 178-1, at 26-29. The six exhibits that are Drs. Suhayda’s and Kemp’s sworn declarations, expert reports, and an appendix are inadmissible hearsay. See Fed. R. Evid. 801(c) 21 ; Fed. R. Evid. 802 22 The remaining twenty-eight exhibits are reports on the hydrology and weather patterns of the New Orleans area that Plaintiffs’ experts were “made aware of or personally observed” and that “experts in the particular field would reasonably rely on ... in forming an opinion on the subject.” Fed. R. Evid. 703 (stating that evidence meeting the aforementioned criteria “need not be admissible for the opinion to be admitted” into expert testimony). And, the court rules that these twenty-eight reports satisfy the public records and business records exceptions to the hearsay prohibition. See Fed. R. Evid. 803(8) (public records exception); Fed. R. Evid. 803(6) (business records exception).

Because the court already ruled above that Drs. Suhayda’s and Kemp’s six expert reports, sworn declarations, and appendix are inadmissible hearsay, the court need not consider the Government’s RCFC 26 objections.

For these reasons, the court rules that twenty-six of the Plaintiffs’ expert declarations, reports, and materials cited exhibits to which the Government objects are admitted, but six of these exhibits are not. See Court Exhibit A § II.A.l.e; Court Exhibit B § II.Al.e.

f. Plaintiffs’ Declarations And Depositions.

Plaintiffs proffered fifty-two depositions and declarations. The Government objects to forty-six 23 of these exhibits. Dkt. No. 178-1, at 29-34. The Government objects to twelve of these exhibits on hearsay grounds and to SPX.0586 on grounds of relevance and cumulativeness. Dkt. No. 178-1, at 29-30, 32-33. In addition, the Government objects to thirty-three exhibits as whole documents, but not to those portions previously admitted. Dkt. No. 178-1, at 29-34.

As to SPX.0586, the court rules that it “has a tendency to make a fact more or less probable” and that “the fact is of consequence in determining the action.” Fed. R. Evid. 401; see also Fed. R. Evid. 402 (stating that “relevant evidence is admissible”). And, the court rules that the “probative value” of this exhibit is not “substantially outweighed by [the] danger of ... needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.” Fed. R. Evid. 403. Therefore, SPX.0586 is admitted.

As to hearsay, the twelve exhibits are four sworn declarations, one technical report, four photograph exhibits, and three letters. Dkt. No. 178-1, at 29-30, 32-33. The four sworn declarations are inadmissible hearsay. See Fed. R. Evid. 801(c); Fed. R. Evid. 802. In addition, because Plaintiffs did not properly authenticate the photographs in SPX.0580-83, these exhibits are inadmissible. See Fed. R. Evid. 901. 24 But, SPX.0570 is a technical report prepared by the Army Corps that the court rules is admissible under the public records and business records exceptions to the hearsay prohibition. See Fed. R. Evid. 803(8) (public records exception); Fed. R. Evid. 803(6) (business records exception). SPX.0584, SPX.0588, and SPX.0590 are letters sent by government officials that also satisfy the public records and business records exceptions to the hearsay prohibition. See Fed. R. Evid. 803(8) (public records exception); Fed. R. Evid. 803(6) (business records exception).

As to the thirty-three exhibits to which the Government objects with exception to those portions designated and previously admitted, the Government does not present a “specific ground” or a ground that is “apparent from the context.” Fed. R. Evid. 103(a)(1)(B); see also Dkt. No. 178-1, at 29-34. Therefore,' the court rules that these exhibits are admissible in their entirety.

For these reasons, the court rules that thirty-eight of Plaintiffs’ declarations and depositions exhibits to which the Government objects are admitted, but eight of these exhibits are not. See Court Exhibit A § II.Al.f; Court Exhibit B § II.Al.f.

g. Congressional Documents.

Plaintiffs proffered ten congressional documents, of which the Government objects to nine 25 on the grounds of relevance and that they are cumulative. Dkt. No. 178-1, at 37-38.

As to relevance, the nine congressional document exhibits to which the Government objects include hearing statements and reports' on Hurricane - Katrina and the Army Corps’ response. Dkt. No. 178-1, at 37-38. The court rules that these exhibits are relevant, because they “ha[ve] a tendency to make a fact more or less probable” and “the fact is of consequence in determining-the action.” Fed. R. Evid. 401; see also Fed. R. Evid. 402 (stating that “relevant evidence is admissible”). - .

In addition, the court rules that the “probative value” of these exhibits is not “substantially outweighed by [the] danger of ... needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.” Fed. R. Evid. 403.

For these reasons, the court rules that the congressional document exhibits are admitted. See Court Exhibit A § II.A.l.g.

h. St. Bernard Parish Studies.

Plaintiffs proffered twenty-one St. Bernard Parish studies, to five 26 of which the Government objects on hearsay grounds. Dkt. No. 178-1, at 38-39. Two exhibits were written by St. Bernard Parish, and three exhibits were prepared by a private company on behalf of St. Bernard Parish. Compare SPX.0715 and SPX.0722, with SPX.0719, SPX.0720, and SPX.0721. The court rules that these exhibits fall within the public records and business records exceptions to the hearsay prohibition. See Fed. R. Evid. 803(8) (public records exception); Fed. R. Evid. 803(6) (business records exception).

For these reasons, the court rules that the St. Bernard Parish studies are admitted. See Court Exhibit A §' II.A.l.h.

i. Additional Reports.

Plaintiffs proffered twenty-one additional reports, to nineteen 27 of which the Government objects. Dkt. No. 178-1, at 39-42. The Government objects to seventeen exhibits on hearsay grounds, to SPX.0728 on hearsay and relevance' grounds, and to SPX.0732 on relevance and cumulativeness' grounds. Dkt. No 178-1, at 39-42.

Fourteen of the seventeen exhibits to which the Government objects are: reports prepared by or with assistance from a state or federal government; city or parish ordinances; a government employee report; or reports prepared by the National Research Council that is funded by the federal government. Dkt. No. 178-1-, at 39-42. Therefore, the court rules that these exhibits fall within the public records and business records exceptions to the hearsay prohibition. See Fed. R. Evid. 803(8) (public records exception); Fed. R. Evid. 803(6) (business records exception).

Two other exhibits, SPX.0749 and SPX.0750, are.articles that analyze risk in hurricane prone areas that were coauthored by an academic and IPET’s Risk and Reliability Team Leader. SPX.0757 is an unidentified map of St. Bernard Parish properties with no known author. Therefore, the court rules that these documents are inadmissible hearsay, because SPX.0749 and SPX.0750 are articles, and SPX.0757 lacks foundation. See Fed. R. Evid. 801(c) (hearsay definition); Fed. R. Evid. 802 (hearsay prohibition).

As to relevance, SPX.0728 is an October 13,1969 letter from the General Superintendent of the New Orleans Sewage and Water Board that discusses the modeling of historical hurricane data, and SPX.0732 is an October 20, 2000 status report of the modification of the MR-GO prepared for the Environmental Protection Agency. The court rules that these exhibits are relevant, because they “ha[ve] a tendency to make a fact more or less probable” and “the fact is of consequence in determining the action.” Fed. R. Evid. 401; see also Fed. R. Evid. 402 (stating that “relevant evidence is admissible”).

As to whether the SPX.0732 is cumulative, the court rules that the “probative value” of SPX.0732 is not “substantially outweighed by [the] danger of ... needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.” Fed. R. Evid. 403.

For these reasons, the court rules that sixteen of these exhibits are admitted, but three exhibits are not. See Court Exhibit A § II.A.l.i; Court Exhibit B § II.A.l.i.

j. Articles.

Plaintiffs proffered thirteen newspaper articles to which the Government objects on hearsay grounds. Dkt. No. 178-1, at 42. 28

These newspaper articles are hearsay and are not admissible for the truth of the matter asserted. See Fed. R. Evid. 801(c); Fed. R. Evid. 802; see also Wathen v. United States, 208 Ct.Cl. 342, 355, 527 F.2d 1191 (1975) (holding that newspaper articles were hearsay).

For these reasons, the court rules that the newspaper articles are not admitted. See Court Exhibit B § II.Al.j.

k. Mississippi River-Gulf Outlet Closure Committee Documents.

Plaintiffs proffered twenty-eight MR-GO Closure Committee documents to which the Government objects on hearsay grounds. Dkt. No. 178-1, at 42^14. 29 These exhibits primarily are meeting minutes from the Committee, as well as reports and maps. Dkt No. 178-1, at 42-44. The MR-GO Closure Committee consists of a public policy committee and technical advisory committee “to design and develop a cost effective program to phase out the MRGO[.]” SPX.0773, at PDF 5. Therefore, the court rules that these exhibits fall within the public records and business records exceptions to the hearsay prohibition. See Fed. R. Evid. 803(8) (public records exception); Fed. R. Evid. 803(6) (business records exception).

For these reasons, the court rules that the MR-GO Closure Committee documents are admitted. See Court Exhibit A § II.A.l.k.

1. Property Records Of Representative Plaintiffs.

Plaintiffs proffered 142 exhibits regarding the property records of representative Plaintiffs. -Dkt. No. 178-1, at 44-62. The Government objects to three of these exhibits, one without specifying a ground and two as to the “portions of the document describing or related to properties not listed in the operative complaint.” Dkt. No. 178-1, at 45. 30 But, the Government does not present a “specific ground,” and the ground is not “apparent from the context.” Fed. R. Evid. 103(a)(1)(B); see also Dkt. No. 178-1, at 29-34. Therefore, the court rules that these exhibits are admissible in their entirety.

For these reasons, the court rules that the exhibits regarding property records of representative Plaintiffs are admitted. See Court Exhibit A § II.A.1.1.

m. Multimedia And Miscellaneous Documents.

Plaintiffs proffered ninety-two multimedia and miscellaneous documents. The Government objects to eighty-nine 31 on the follow ing grounds: relevance; cumulativeness; hearsay; lack of foundation; RCFC 26; and Daubert. Dkt. No. 178-1, at 62-68.

The Government objects to eighty-one of these exhibits on relevance grounds. Dkt. No. 178-1, at 62-68. The eighty-one exhibits to which the Government objects include a variety of documents discussing the MR-GO, flooding in Southeast Louisiana, and the Army Corps’ response to Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. Dkt. No. 178-1, at 62-68. Therefore, the court rules that these exhibits are relevant, because they “ha[ve] a tendency to make a fact more or less probable,” and “the fact is of consequence in determining the action.” Fed. R. Evid. 401; see also Fed. R. Evid. 402 (stating that “relevant evidence is admissible”).

The Government objects to seventy-eight of these exhibits as cumulative. Dkt. No. 178-1, at 62-68. The court rules that the “probative value” of these exhibits is not “sdbstantially outweighed by [the] danger of... needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.” Fed. R. Evid. 403.

The Government objects to six of these exhibits, pursuant to RCFC 26, but does not identify a particular subsection of RCFC 26. Dkt. No. 178-1, at 68. These exhibits are four Storm Atlas Maps demonstrating surge levels, an undated model, and photographs from Hurricane Rita. Dkt. No. 178-1, at 68; see also 12/14/11 TR at 1051-53. At.trial, they were included in a witnesses’ binder (12/14/11 TR at 1051-53), but the court has been unable to determine whether these exhibits were properly disclosed or otherwise complied with RCFC 26. Therefore, these exhibits are not admitted.

The Government objects to fifty-three of these exhibits on hearsay grounds. Dkt. No. 1781, at 62-68. Six of these exhibits are inadmissible, pursuant to RCFC 26, and need not be considered as to hearsay. Five of these exhibits are newspaper articles that are hearsay. See Fed.R.Evid. 801(c) (hearsay definition); Fed. R. Evid. 802 (hearsay prohibition); see also Wathen, 208 Ct.Cl. at 355, 527 F.2d 1191 (holding that newspaper articles and an investigative report are hearsay and not admissible). Three of these exhibits are government publications that fall under the public records exception to the hearsay prohibition. See Fed. R. Evid. 803(8) (public records exception). Thirty-nine of these exhibits are emails, memoran-da, reports, and other similar documents that satisfy the business records exception to the hearsay prohibition. See Fed. R. Evid. 803(6) (business records exception). Therefore, forty-two of these exhibits are admissible hearsay, but five are inadmissible.

The Government objects to SPX. 01067 and SPX.01068 for lack of foundation. Dkt. No. 178-1, at 63. Neither of these exhibits was discussed at trial, and the court is unable to determine the basis for admitting these documents. Therefore, SPX.01067 and SPX.01068 are not admitted.

The Government also objects SPX.01168, photographs from Hurricane Rita, based on Daubert. Dkt. No. 178-1, at 68. The court has ruled that this exhibit is not admitted for lack of foundation. Therefore, a Daubert analysis is unnecessary..

For these reasons, the court rules that seventy-nine of the ninety-two multimedia and miscellaneous documents exhibits are admissible. See Court Exhibit A § II.A.l.m; Court Exhibit B § II.A.l.m.

2. Robinson Exhibits. 32

On December 5, 2011, the Government filed a Motion To Exclude Robinson Material Not Independently Admissible In This Action (“Gov’t Mot.”). The Government objects to the “blanket admission of evidence presented in Robinson ” on three grounds. Gov’t Mot. at 1.

First, the Robinson record “does not address the proof elements Plaintiffs must es tablish in this case,” because that case “involved analysis of the -flooding incident to a single event—Hurricane Katrina.” Gov’t Mot. at 2. It is impossible to “generalize possible flooding scenarios from one storm to another,” and “the physical features on the ground ... are significantly different today[.]” Gov’t Mot. at 3.

Second, the Robinson trial transcripts are inadmissible hearsay. Gov’t Mot. at 3-5 (citing Fed. R. Evid. 801(c)(1)—(2) (defining hearsay as a statement “the declarant does not make while testifying at the current trial or hearing ... offer[ed] in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted”); Anderson v. United States, 417 U.S. 211, 219-20, 94 S.Ct. 2253, 41 L.Ed.2d 20 (1974) (holding that prior trial testimony is not admissible to prove the truth of the matter asserted); Trs. of Univ. of Pa. v. Lexington Ins. Co., 815 F.2d 890, 905 (3d Cir.1987) (same); United States v. Arias, 575 F.2d 253, 254 n.1 (9th Cir.1978) (same)). In addition, the Government “had neither the opportunity nor similar motive to examine any witness who testified in Robinson,” so the Robinson testimony does not satisfy Rule 804(b) of the Federal Rules of Evidence. Gov’t Mot. at 5 (citing Fed. R. Evid. 804(b)(l)(A)-(B) (excepting from the hearsay rule testimony “given as a witness at trial, hearing, or lawful deposition, whether given during the current proceeding or a different one,” if the party against whom the testimony is now offered had “an opportunity and similar motive to develop [the testimony] by direct, cross-, or redirect examination”)).

Third, Plaintiffs failed to “designate[ ] any specific testimony from [Robinson ] to offer as evidence in this trial” or to “make ... disclosures of any of the Robinson reports.” Gov’t Mot. at 5-6 (citing RCFC App. A ¶ 15(b) (“Any party intending to present substantive evidence by way of deposition testimony ... shall serve and file a separate motion for leave to file the transcript of such testimony.”); RCFC 26(a) (governing the duty to disclose during discovery)). This contravenes the RCFC’s and Federal Rules of Evidence’s attempts to prevent such “last minute and undefined disclosure.” Gov’t Mot. at 7.

In this ease, Plaintiffs seek to admit testimony and expert reports from Robinson. The Government first argues that Robinson analyzed only Hurricane Katrina, whereas this case involves multiple flooding events. Gov’t Mot. at 2-3. But, complete identity of issues is not relevant to a hearsay analysis. See 8a Charles Alan WRIght & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practioe And Prooedure § 2150 (3d ed.) (“[Substantial identity of issues, rather than precisely the same subject matter, is all that is required.”).

Much of the Robinson evidence proffered by Plaintiffs in this case was testimony by Government employees or experts. As such, it is not hearsay. See Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(2)(C) (stating that statements “offered against an opposing party” and “made by the party’s agent or employee on a matter within the scope of that relationship and while it existed” are not hearsay). Other Robinson evidence was given under “circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness,” i.e., at trial; is “offered as evidence of a material fact,” e.g., the Army Corps constructed the MR-' GO; “is more probative ... than any other evidence” reasonably obtainable; and “will best serve the ... interests of justice,” e.g., judicial efficiency and a comprehensive factual record. See Fed. R. Evid. 807(a). As such, this evidence is admissible under the residual exception to the hearsay rule.

Moreover, on February 25, 2011, the court notified the parties that it planned to admit the Robinson record, but the Government did not object for over nine months. 2/25/11 TR at 10-11. Thus, the Government’s argument that the Robinson evidence constituted a last-minute and undefined disclosure is inaccurate. The parties cited Robinson in their briefs and prepared for trial with the understanding that Robinson evidence would be admitted. Dkt. No. 144, at 42 (Government Pre-Trial Brief); 11/1/10 TR at 13-14 (explaining that Plaintiffs would “need to redepose some people,” if the Robinson materials were inadmissible). As such, the Government waived its argument that the Robinson record should not be admitted. See United States v. Ziegler Bolt & Parts Co., 111 F.3d 878, 882 (Fed.Cir.1997) (holding that the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit “places waiver within the discretion of the trial court, consistent with its broad duties in managing the conduct of cases pending before it”).

Finally, the court has taken judicial notice of the Robinson record. Federal Rule of Evidence 201(b) provides that “[t]he court may judicially notice a fact that is not subject to reasonable dispute because it ... (2) can be accurately and readily determined from sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.” Fed. R. Evid. 201(b). Even though “[m]atters of record in other courts are usually denied notice,” 2 MoCoRMICK On Evidenoe § 330 (7th ed.2013), the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Cir--cuit has taken judicial notice of proceedings before other courts and tribunals. See, e.g., Old Reliable Wholesale, Inc. v. Cornell Corp., 635 F.3d 539, 549 (Fed.Cir.2011) (“[T]his court can take judicial notice of the fact that the [Patent and Trademark Office] ... issued a notice of intent to issue a reexamination certificate confirming the patentability of all claims of the ’950 patent.”); Advanced Software Design Corp. v. Fed. Reserve Bank, 583 F.3d 1371, 1379 n.3 (Fed.Cir.2009) (taking judicial notice of bid protest proceedings at the Government Accountability Office but “staffing] no view on the merits”); Phonometrics, Inc. v. Hospitality Int’l, Inc., 120 Fed.Appx. 341, 344-45 (Fed.Cir.2005) (holding that the district court did not err in taking judicial notice of “facts in another ease,” because the court “merely recognized that the transcripts of prior court proceedings were sources ‘whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned’ ”). The Government has- not argued that the Robinson evidence’s accuracy can reasonably be questioned. As such, the-court rules that the proffered evidence from Robinson is “not subject to reasonable dispute” and- is subject to judicial notice. Fed. R. Evid. 201(b).

For these reasons, the court rules that the Robinson exhibits are admissible. See Court Exhibit A § II.A.2.

B. Court Exhibit. 33

During trial,- the court marked Dr. G. Paul Kemp’s testimony from Robinson as Court Exhibit 9. 12/12/11 TR at 203. Because the court rules that the Robinson exhibits are admissible, Court Exhibit 9 is admitted. See Court Exhibit A § II.B.

III. THE PARTIES’ EXPERT WITNESSES. '

The parties each proffered the testimony of two expert witnesses for the December 12, 2011 to December 15, 2011 liability trial. The court ruled above that Plaintiffs’ experts, Dr. Joseph N. Suhayda and Dr. G. Paul Kemp, were qualified as experts. See Section ILA.l.e. The Government proffered Dr. Louis D. Britsch III 34 and Dr. Donald T. Resio 35 as experts. Both Drs. Britsch and Resio have extensive educational qualifications and professional experience in relevant fields. Therefore, the court rules that Drs. Britsch and Resio are qualified as expert witnesses and that their testimony: “will help the trier of fact to understand the evidence”; “is based on sufficient facts or data”; “is the product of reliable principles and' methods”; and “the expert has reliably applied the principles and methods to the factsfi]” Fed. R. Evid. 702.

IV. CONCLUSION.

The documents listed in Court Exhibit A are admitted as evidence. ' See Court Exhibit A. The documents listed in Court Exhibit B are not admitted as evidence. See Court Exhibit B.

The entire record submitted in this ease contains additional documents, and this Memorandum Opinion And Final Order On Evidentiary Issues does not withdraw these other documents from the record of this case. In addition to the documents identified above, the record of this case includes documents attached to multiple pleadings. By way of example, these documents include those submitted in briefing related to the Government’s October 4, 2006 Motion To Dismiss (Dkt. Nos. 27-34); briefing related to the Government’s November 7, 2008

Motion For Summary Judgment (Dkt. Nos. 67, 70, 74); briefing related to the Government’s June 3, 2011 Motion For Summary Judgment (Dkt. Nos. 106, 107, 113, 114, 118, 119); briefing related to the Government’s October 8, 2011 Motion To Dismiss The Claims Of Plaintiffs Tommoso “Tommy” G. Tommaseo And Gwendolyn And Henry Adams (Dkt. Nos. 127, 148, 153); briefing related to Plaintiffs’ June 22, 2010 Motion For Class Certification (Dkt. Nos. 91, 207); and briefing related to the Government’s September 26, 2013 Motion For Partial Summary Judgment Regarding Federal Grant Offsets (Dkt. Nos. 222, 235).

The Government’s December 5, 2011 Motion To Exclude is now moot.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

1 . As discussed in the parties' March 23, 2012 Joint Submission Of Exhibits Offered Into Evidence (Dkt. No. 178) (“Joint Submission”), Plaintiffs have offered into evidence "SPX” exhibits appearing on Plaintiffs' pretrial exhibit list in this case, together with three categories of exhibits that were admitted in Robinson v. United States, Case No. 06-CV-2268 (E.D.La.) ("Robinson "): Plaintiff ("PX”) exhibits; Defendant ("DX”) exhibits; and Joint ("JX”) exhibits. In its May 1, 2015, Memorandum Opinion And Order, the 'court indicates Robinson exhibits with the letter "R,” i.e., "RPX,” "RDX,” and "RJX.”

2 . On October 28, 2011, Plaintiffs filed a Motion To Designate Deposition Transcript. Dkt. No. 134. On November 4, 2011, the Government filed a Motion To Designate Deposition Testimony. Dkt. No. 140. On November 14, 2011, the Government opposed Plaintiffs' Motion To Designate Deposition Testimony, and submitted cross-designations to the extent the court granted Plaintiffs’ Motion. Dkt. No. 145. On November 21, 2011, Plaintiffs filed a Response to the Government's .November 4, 2011 Motion. Dkt. No. 149. On November 23, 2011, Plaintiffs filed a Reply. Dkt. No. 153. On December 2, 2011, the court admitted the initial deposition designations. 12/2/11 Minute Orders (admitting Dkt. 134, 140).

3 . The Government objects to the admission, of each of the documents listed in this section, "renewing] all evidentiary objections asserted at trial" and "object[ing] that each exhibit not used at trial lacks foundation to be admitted into the record.” Dkt. No. 178-1, at 1 n. 1.

4 . The twenty-five exhibits consist of twenty-two IPET exhibits, two ILIT exhibits, and one Team Louisiana exhibit. The twenty-two IPET exhibits are: SPX.0001; SPX.0002; SPX.0003; SPX. 0005; SPX.0006; SPX.0007; SPX.0009; SPX. 0011; SPX.0012; SPX.0013; SPX.0014; SPX. 0015; SPX.0016; SPX.0017; SPX.0018; SPX. 0019; SPX.0020; SPX.0021; SPX.0022; SPX. 0024; SPX.0025; SPX.0026. The two ILIT exhibits are: SPX.0027; SPX.0028. The Team Louisiana exhibit is: SPX.0029. Of these twenty-five exhibits, seven were admitted in their entirety in Robinson and five were admitted, in part, in Robinson. See Dkt. No. 178-1, at 1 n. 2.

5 . Of these two exhibits, one was. admitted in full in Robinson.

6 . Federal Rule of Evidence 401 provides that "[e]vidence is relevant if: (a) it has a tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence; and (b) the fact is of consequence in determining the action.” Fed. R. Evid. 401; see also Fed. R. Evid. 402 (stating that "relevant evidence is admissible unless any of the following provides otherwise: the United States Constitution; a federal statute; these rules; or other rules prescribed by the Supreme Court.”).

7 . Although it would be impracticable to conduct an extensive multi-factor analysis of the hearsay exclusions and exceptions potentially applicable to every exhibit to which the Government objects on hearsay grounds, the court has carefully considered Federal Rules of Evidence 801, 803, and 804.

8 . Federal Rule of Evidence 803(8) provides for excepting from the hearsay prohibition "[a] record or statement of a public office if: (A) it sets out: (i) the office's activities; (ii) a matter observed while under a legal duty to report ...; or (iii) ... factual findings from a legally authorized investigation; and (B) the opponent does not show that the source of the information or other circumstances indicate a lack of trustworthiness.” Fed R. Evid. 803(8).

9 . Federal Rule of Evidence 803(6) excepts from the hearsay prohibition:

[a] record of an act, event, condition, opinion, or 'diagnosis if: (A) the record was made at or near the time by—or from information transmitted by—someone with knowledge; (B) the record was kept in the course of a regularly conducted activity of a business, organization, occupation, or calling, whether or not for profit; (C) making the record was a regular practice of that activity; (D) all these conditions are shown by the testimony of the custodian or another qualified witness, or by a certification that complies with Rule 902(11) or (12) or with a statute permitting certification; and (E) the opponent does not show that the source of information or the method or circumstances of preparation indicate a lack of trustworthiness.

Fed. R. Evid. 803(6).

10 . The 212 Army Corps exhibits are: SPX.0100; SPX.0101; SPX.0102; SPX.0103; SPX.0104; SPX.0105; SPX.0107; SPX.0108; SPX.0113; SPX.0117; SPX.0118; SPX.0119; SPX.0123; SPX.0127; SPX.0128; SPX.0129; SPX.0130; SPX.0131; SPX.0132; SPX.0133; SPX.0134; SPX.0135; SPX.0136; SPX.0137; SPX.0140; SPX.0141; SPX.0142; SPX.0143; SPX.0144; SPX.0145; SPX.0146; SPX.0147; SPX.0148; SPX.0151; SPX.0152; SPX.0155; SPX.0156; SPX.0157; SPX.0158; SPX.0159; SPX.0160; SPX.0162; SPX.0164; SPX.0166; SPX.0167; SPX.0168; SPX.0170; SPX.0172; SPX.0173; SPX.0174; SPX.0175; SPX.0176; SPX.0178; SPX.0180; SPX.0184; SPX.0185; SPX.0186; SPX.0187; SPX.0188; SPX.0189; SPX.0190; SPX.0191; SPX.0192; SPX.0193; SPX.0194; SPX.0195; SPX.0196; SPX.0197; SPX.0198; SPX.0199; SPX.0200; SPX.0201; SPX.0202; SPX.0203; SPX.0204; SPX.0205; SPX.0206; SPX.0207; SPX.0208; SPX.0209; SPX.0210; SPX.0211; SPX.0212; SPX.0213; SPX.0214; SPX.0215; SPX.0216; SPX.0217; SPX.0218; SPX.0219; SPX.0220; SPX.0222; SPX.0223; SPX.0224; SPX.0225; SPX.0226; SPX.0229; SPX.0230; SPX.0231; SPX.0232; SPX.0233; SPX.0234; SPX.0236; SPX.0237; SPX.0238; SPX.0239; SPX.0241; SPX.0242; SPX.0243; SPX.0244; SPX.0246; SPX.0247; SPX.0248; SPX.0249; SPX.0250; SPX.0251; SPX.0252; SPX.0253; SPX.0254; SPX.0255; SPX.0256; SPX.0257; SPX.0258; SPX.0259; SPX.0260; SPX.0263; SPX.0266; SPX.0267; SPX.0268; SPX.0269; SPX.0272; SPX.0276; SPX.0277; SPX.0278; SPX.0280; SPX.0281; SPX.0282; SPX.0283; SPX.0284; SPX.0285; SPX.0286; SPX.0287; SPX.0289; SPX.0290; SPX.0291; SPX.0292; SPX.0293; SPX.0294; SPX.0295; SPX.0296; SPX.0297; SPX.0298; SPX.0303; SPX.0305; SPX.0308; SPX.0309; SPX.0310; SPX.0312; SPX.0315; SPX.0316; SPX.0319; SPX.0324; SPX.0326; SPX.0329; SPX.0331; SPX.0333; SPX.0334; SPX.0335; SPX.0337; SPX.0338; SPX.0342; SPX.0344; SPX.0346; SPX.0347; SPX.0349; SPX.0351; SPX.0352; SPX.0353; SPX.0354; SPX.0355; SPX.0356; SPX.0357; SPX.0359; SPX.0360; SPX.0361; SPX.0362; SPX.0363; SPX.0364; SPX.0365; SPX.0366; SPX.0367; SPX.0368; SPX.0372; SPX.0373; SPX.0374; SPX.0383; SPX.0384; SPX.0392; SPX.0393; SPX.0394; SPX.0395; SPX.0396; SPX.0397; SPX.0398; SPX.0399; SPX.0400; SPX.0401; SPX.0402; SPX.0403; SPX.0405; SPX.0407; SPX.0408. Of these 212 exhibits, thirty-two were admitted in their entirety in Robinson and four were admitted, in part, in Robinson. Dkt. No. 178-1, at 3-8, 10-14, 18. SPX.0169 was admitted in its entirety in Robinson. Dkt. No. 178-1, at 7.

11 . Federal Rule of Evidence 403 provides that “[t]he court may exclude relevant evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of ... needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.” Fed. R. Evid. 403 (emphasis added).

12 . Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d) provides:

A statement ... is not hearsay_(2) [if it] is offered against an opposing party and: (A) was made by the party in an individual or representative capacity; (B) is one the party manifested that it adopted or believed to be true; (C) was made by a person whom the party authorized to make a,statement on the subject; (D) was made by the party’s agent or employee on a matter within the scope of that relationship and while it existed; or (E) was made by the party's coconspirator during and in furtherance of the conspiracy.

Fed. R. Evid. 801(d) (emphasis added).

13 . The court also rules that SPX.0169 is admitted, as relevant evidence and as evidence admit- led in Robinson. See Fed. R. Evid. 402; see also Dkt. No. 178-1, at 7.

14 . The fifty-nine FEMA documents and related materials are: SPX.0409; SPX.0410; SPX.0411; SPX. 0412; SPX. 0413; SPX.0414; SPX.0415; SPX. 0416; SPX. 0418; SPX.0419; SPX.0420; SPX.0421; SPX.0422; SPX.0423; SPX.0424; SPX.0425; SPX.0426; SPX.0427; SPX.0428; SPX.0429; SPX.0430; SPX.0431; SPX.0432; SPX.0433; SPX.0434; SPX.0435; SPX.0436; SPX.0437; SPX.0438; SPX.0439; SPX.0440; SPX.0441; SPX.0442; SPX.0443; SPX.0444; SPX.0445; SPX.0446; SPX.0447; SPX.0448; SPX.0449; SPX.0450; SPX.0451; SPX.0452; SPX.0453; SPX.0454; SPX.0455; SPX.0456; SPX.0457; SPX.0458; SPX.0459; SPX.0460; SPX.0461; SPX.0462; SPX.0463; SPX.0464; SPX.0465; SPX.0466; SPX.0467; SPX.0469. The USGS document is SPX.0470. SPX.0415 was admitted in its entirety in Robinson.

15 . The fifteen Robinson expert reports are: SPX. 0471; SPX.0472; SPX.0473; SPX.0474; SPX. 0475; SPX.0476; SPX.0478; SPX.0480; SPX. 0482; SPX.0483; SPX.0484; SPX.0485; SPX. 0486; SPX.0488; SPX.0489. For SPX.0483 and SPX.0484, the Government objects on both hearsay and RCFC 26 grounds. Ten of the documents were admitted in their entirety in Robinson, and two were admitted, in part.

16 . The thirty-two expert declarations, reports, and materials cited are: SPX.0491; SPX.0494; SPX.0495; SPX.0496; SPX.0497; SPX.0499; SPX.0500; SPX.0502; SPX.0503; SPX.0504; SPX.0505; SPX.0506; SPX.0507; SPX.0508; SPX.0509; SPX.0510; SPX.0511; SPX.0512; SPX.0513; SPX.0515; SPX.0517; SPX.0518; SPX.0519; SPX.0520; SPX.0521; SPX.0522; SPX.0523; SPX.0524; SPX.0525; SPX.0526; SPX.0527; SPX.0528. Six of these exhibits were admitted as evidence in Robinson.

17 . Federal Rule of Evidence 702 provides:

A witness who is qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education may testify in the form' of an opinion or otherwise if: (a) the expert’s scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will help the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue; (b) the testimony is based on sufficient facts or data; (c) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods; and (d) the expert has reliably applied the principles and methods to the facts of the case.

Fed. R. Evid. 702.

18 . Dr. George Paul Kemp is a geologist and oceanographer, and is Vice President of the National Audubon Society and Director of the Louisiana Gulf Coast Initiative. He obtained his B.S. in Natural Resources from Cornell University, and his M.S. and Ph.D in Marine Sciences from Louisiana State University. See 12/6/11 Kemp Direct at 5-19.

19 . Dr. Joseph N. Suhayda is a Coastal Hydrologist and Coastal Oceanographer with an advanced degree in Physical Oceanography. He obtained his B.S. in Physics from California State University, Northbridge, and a Ph.D in Physical Oceanography from the University of California, San Diego, Scripps Institution of Oceanography. See 12/6/11 Suhayda Direct at 4-6.

20 . On November 23, 2011, the Government filed separate Motions In Limine to exclude the testimony of Drs. Kemp and Suhayda that the court denied on December 2, 2011. At triaf the court informed the parties that it would rule on the admissibility of the testimony of Drs. Kemp and Suhayda when it issued a final opinion. 12/13/11 TR at 667.

21 . Federal Rule of Evidence 801(c) provides, " ‘Hearsay’ means a statement that: (1) the de-clarant does not make while testifying at the current trial or hearing; and (2) a party offers in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted in the statement.” Fed. R. Evid. 801(c).

22 . Federal Rule of Evidence 802 provides, "Hearsay is not admissible unless any of the following provides otherwise: a federal statute; these rules; or other rules prescribed by the Supreme Court [of the United States].” Fed. R. Evid. 802.

23 . The forty-six exhibits are: SPX.0529; SPX. 0530; SPX.0531; SPX.0533; SPX.0536; SPX. 0537; SPX.0538; SPX.0539; SPX.0540; SPX. 0542; SPX.0547; SPX.0548; SPX.0556; SPX. 0557; SPX.0558; SPX.0560; SPX.0563; SPX. 0564; SPX.0566; SPX.0568; SPX.0570; SPX. 0571; SPX.0573; SPX.0574; SPX.0575; SPX. 0577; SPX.0578; SPX.0579; SPX.0580; SPX. 0581; SPX.0582; SPX.0583; SPX.0584; SPX. 0586; SPX.0588; SPX.0590; SPX.0594; SPX. 0597; SPX.0598; SPX.0603; SPX.0609; SPX. 0613; SPX.0615; SPX.0617; SPX.0618; SPX. 0624. Five of these exhibits were admitted in their entirety in Robinson.

24 . Federal Rule of Evidence 901 provides, "To satisfy the requirement of authenticating or identifying an item of evidence, the proponent must produce evidence sufficient to support a finding that the item is what the proponent claims it is." Fed. R. Evid. 901.

25 . The nine congressional exhibits are: SPX. 0687; SPX.0688; SPX.0689; SPX.0690; SPX. 0692; SPX.0693; SPX.0696; SPX.0697; SPX. 0698. Four of these exhibits were admitted in their entirety in Robinson. Dkt. No. 178-1, at 37-38.

26 . The five St. Bernard Parish studies are: SPX. 0715; SPX.0719; SPX.0720; SPX.0721; -SPX. 0722.

27 . The nineteen additional reports are: SPX. 0726; SPX.0728; SPX.0732; SPX.0733; SPX. 0734; SPX.0736; SPX.0737; SPX.0741; SPX. 0743; SPX.0744; SPX.0745; SPX.0746; SPX. 0747; SPX.0748; SPX.0749; SPX.0750; SPX. 0755; SPX.0756; SPX.0757. Two of these exhibits were admitted in their entirety in Robinson, and one was admitted, in part.

28 . The thirteen newspaper articles are: SPX. 0758; SPX.0759; SPX.0760; SPX.0761; SPX. 0762; SPX.0763; SPX.0764; SPX.0765; SPX. 0766; SPX.0767; SPX.0770; SPX.0771; SPX. 0772.

29 . The twenty-eight MR-GO Closure - Committee exhibits are: SPX.0773; SPX.0774; SPX.0777; SPX.0780; SPX.0783; SPX.0785; SPX.0788; SPX.0797; SPX.0807; SPX.0817; SPX.0822; SPX.0824; SPX.0825; SPX.0826; SPX.0828; SPX.0830; SPX.0832; SPX.0845; SPX.0851; SPX.0852; SPX.0853; SPX.0854; SPX.0855; SPX.0857; SPX.0865; SPX.0867; SPX.0869; SPX.0880. Seventeen of these exhibits were admitted in their entirety in Robinson.

30 . The three exhibits are: SPX.0902; SPX.0906; SPX.0907.

31 . The eighty-nine exhibits are: SPX.01042; SPX.01054; SPX.01056; SPX.01057; SPX. 01058; SPX.01059; SPX.01060; SPX.01062; SPX.01063; SPX.01066; SPX.01067; SPX. 01068; SPX.01069; SPX.01070; SPX.01071; SPX.01072; ' SPX.01073; SPX.01074; SPX. 01075; SPX.01077; SPX.01079; SPX.01082; SPX.01083; SPX.01084; SPX.01086; SPX. 01087; SPX.01088; SPX.01089; SPX.01090; SPX.01091; SPX.01092; SPX.01093; SPX. 01095; SPX.01096; SPX.01097; SPX.01098; SPX.01099; SPX.01100; SPX.01101; SPX.01102; SPX.01103; SPX.01104; SPX.01106; SPX. 01107; SPX.01109; SPX.0111O; SPX.01112; SPX.01113; SPX.01114; SPX.01115; SPX. . 01116; SPX.01117; SPX.01119; SPX.01120; SPX.01121; SPX.01126; SPX.01127; SPX. 01128; SPX.01130; SPX.01131; SPX.01132; SPX.01133; SPX.01134; SPX.01136; SPX. 01139; SPX.01140; SPX.01141; SPX.01142; SPX.01143; SPX.01144;' SPX.01145; SPX. 01146; SPX.01148; SPX.01150; SPX.01151; SPX.01152; SPX.01153; SPX.01155; SPX. 01157; SPX.01158; SPX.01159; SPX.01160; SPX.01161; SPX.01162; SPX.01163; SPX. 01164; SPX.01165; SPX.01166; SPX.01168. Three of these exhibits were admitted in their entirety in Robinson. Dkt. No. 178-1, at 64.

32 . For a list of Robinson exhibits, see Court Exhibit A § II.A.2.

33 . The Government previously objected to the wholesale admission of Robinson trial evidence in this matter and objects to the use of Court Exhibit 9 in this case for the truth of the matter asserted.

34 . Dr. Louis D. Britsch, III is a geologist who manages the Geology Unit of the New Orleans District of the United States Army Corps of Engineers. He obtained his B.S. in Geology from • Nicholls State University, his M.S. in Geology from Tulane University, and his Ph.D in Coastal Geology from the University of New Orleans. He has worked for the Army Corps for the past twenty-seven years. See 12/8/11 Britsch Direct at 1.

35 .Dr. Donald T. Resio is the Director, Taylor Engineering Research Institute, at the University of North Florida. He obtained an undergraduate, masters, and doctoral degrees from the University of Virginia. His doctorate is in Environmental Science: Earth Sciences. See 12/8/11 Resio Direct at 2-4.