"The Government proposed substitutions for the witnesses’ deposition testimony in the form of a series of statements derived from the * * * * summaries. The district court rejected all proposed substitutions as inadequate. The ruling of the district court was based on its conclusions regarding the inherent inadequacy of the substitutions and its findings regarding the specific failings of the Government’s proposals. For the reasons set forth below, we reject the ruling of the district court that any substitution for the witnesses’ testimony would be inadequate. We agree, however, with the assessment that the particular proposals submitted by the Government are inadequate in their current form."
.
Sounds like a wash. 62 pages to tell the parties to go back to square one.
I agree. The court says essentially that there's gotta be a way to do this and that they should go do it under the court's guidelines.
Check your freepmail.