Claim "Summary" Ruled Inadmissible under ER 1006
A contractor hired by the federal government to expand a levee in Louisiana requested an equitable adjustment to its contract for extra labor and material costs. The claim was written by an outside consultant who lacked personal knowledge of the events. The goverment brought a pretrial motion in limine to exclude the consultant's claim, arguing it lacked any shred of reliability.
As often happens with such motions, the Court of Federal Claims ruled the objection went to the weight of the claim rather than its admissibility, and denied the motion on that basis. In doing so, however, the Court also addressed an issue which arises in many construction claims: when is a party allowed to submit a "summary" of voluminous evidence under ER 1006? For reasons described in the opinion, the Court held in this case the "summary" failed to meet the four-part test of ER 1006 and thus the case provides useful guidance to those who may wish to rely on "summary" evidence at trial in Washington as well.