Alaska Employment Law

In this appeal under the Contract Disputes Act concerning a “requirements” contract for cargo shipped between Adak and the Pacific Northwest, District Judge John Sedwick has:

1) barred plaintiff Samson from calling witnesses first identified after the deadlines for the Final Witness List and for discovery;

2) held that a plaintiff is not required, before trial, to do a Rule 30(b)(6) designation of witnesses on EAJA fee issues;

3) refused to bar an expert witness from testifying to opinions in a supplemental report filed (necessarily) after the “frequently extended deadline” for expert reports:

The United States’ assertion that it is somehow prejudiced by having the benefit of a written report showing how [plaintiff’s expert] Johnson might be able to rebut [defendant’s expert] Nadel if called as a rebuttal witness at trial is not persuasive. If anything, the United States has had a benefit that often would not be available. That is, the defendant had a chance to depose a witness on what would ordinarily first be heard only after the close of defendant’s case as rebuttal testimony.

and 4) held that the Daubert threshhold is lower in court, rather than jury trials.

Samson Tug and Barge Co. v. United States, 2008 WL 3200695 (D.Alaska Aug. 6, 2008)

William Royce of Anchorage represents plaintiff Samson. Jeanne Frankson, AUSA in San Francisco, represents the government.