opinion: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. 691.81 ACRES OF LAND, MORE OR LESS, SITUATE IN CLARK COUNTY, STATE OF OHIO, and William Ervin, Defendant-Appellant.
  No. 20758.
  United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.
  June 10, 1971.
  Kenneth G. Rush, Springfield, Ohio, for defendant-appellant, Rush, Henderson & Rush, Springfield, Ohio, Kenneth G. Rush, Springfield', Ohio, of counsel, on brief.
  Dirk D. Snell, Dept, of Justice, Washington, D. C., for plaintiff-appellee; Shiro Kashiwa, Asst. Atty. Gen., George R. Hyde, Dirk D. Snell, Attys., Dept, of Justice, Washington, D. C., William W. Milligan, U. S. Atty., James E. Rattan, Asst. U. S. Atty., Columbus, Ohio, on brief.
  Before WEICK, PECK and McCREE, Circuit Juges.
  PER CURIAM.
  Appellant, William Ervin, was the owner of 366.80 acres of land in Clark County, Ohio, which was taken by the United States of America on October 31, 1967, as part of a condemnation action for the building of a project known as the Buck Creek Reservoir. This action was consolidated with the taking of another tract of land and a jury trial was had in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio resulting in a judgment for appellant of $280,000.00. On this appeal, appellant raises two issues for our consideration. In the first issue, appellant contends that through some inadvertence or misunderstanding during the trial, the jury returned a verdict in a lower amount than the one decided upon during its deliberations, and that the District Court erred in denying appellant’s motion for a new trial and in not permitting him to interview or examine the jurors several days after the trial to disclose the alleged discrepancy in their verdict. In the second issue, he contends that the District Court erred in granting a motion of the Government to quash a subpoena duces tecum which had been filed and served on the Chief of the Real Estate Division of the United States District Corps of Engineers in Louisville, Kentucky. We find appellant’s contentions under the second issue herein to be meritorious and reverse and remand for a new trial.
  The subpoena duces tecum was filed in the District Court on February 25, 1970, and was served two days later on Fred Morgan, the Corps of Engineers’ Chief of the Real Estate Division in Louisville. It commanded him to appear and testify at trial, and to bring with him certain records concerning a purchase, without a condemnation action, by the Corps of Engineers of a tract of land described as the Paul Deer Farm, located within an eighth of a mile of appellant’s farm. On March 3, 1970, on the eve of the trial, the Government filed a motion to quash the subpoena along with an affidavit stating that the Paul Deer Farm was purchased in September, 1968, under threat of condemnation for the same project for which appellant’s property was taken and that the negotiation for acquiring said purchase “began sometime earlier.” The following day, as the trial opened, the District Judge sustained the motion of the Government orally from the bench without disclosing the basis for the ruling, stating only that “he found the [motion] to be well taken.”
  Disposition of the Government’s motion to quash was required to be in accordance with the provisions of Rule 45 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Under that rule, a court
  “[M]ay (1) quash or modify the subpoena if it is unreasonable and oppressive or (2) condition denial of the motion upon the advancement by the person in whose behalf the subpoena is issued of the reasonable cost of producing the books, papers, documents or tangible things.” (Emphasis supplied.)
  There is nothing in the present record to indicate a finding as to whether the subpoena was “unreasonable and oppressive.” The allegations of the Government which the District Judge received before granting the motion to quash went only to the question of the ultimate admissibility of the evidence at trial, and the arguments in the Government’s brief before this court are directed to the same question. Since no opportunity had then been afforded to offer foundation or other evidence, we can only conclude that a premature ruling was made on the admissibility of this comparable sale evidence. Appellant was thus denied an opportunity to demonstrate the circumstances which may have rendered the comparable sale evidence competent and admissible. Under the present set of facts, appellant must be given an opportunity to introduce evidence before the question of admissibility can be validly ruled upon.
  There is no absolute rule which excludes evidence of sales of similar property made subsequent to the condemnation action. United States v. 79.-39 Acres of Land, 440 F.2d 1190 (6th Cir., Mar. 25, 1971); United States v. Meadow Brook Club, 259 F.2d 41 (2d Cir. 1958), cert. denied, 358 U.S. 921, 79 S.Ct. 290, 3 L.Ed.2d 239 (1958). The possibility that the condemnation itself may have influenced the price the Government paid for the Paul Deer property may well disclose the presence of artificially inflated values in the sale price of that property. Nevertheless, this is merely a possibility which cannot be determined through use of a general exclusionary rule prior to trial. United States v. 63.04 Acres of Land, 245 F.2d 140, 144 (2d Cir. 1957). It has long been recognized that comparable sales of other properties provide the best evidence of value of property taken by condemnation when such sales are truly comparable. The ideal item of such evidence would be provided by the sale of the same piece of property immediately prior to the institution of the condemnation proceeding by a willing seller not under compulsion to sell to a willing buyer not under compulsion to purchase, and without knowledge on the part of either of the contemplated condemnation. For obvious reasons, however, evidence of this precise nature is seldom available. Therefore, the trier of fact must look to other comparable sales, making appropriate adjustment for differences in time and in the nature and location of the properties. The fact that the sales may be widely separated in time and that very substantial differences exist in, for example, the terrain, accessibility, natural resources and other characteristics of the properties involved must be taken into account by the trier of fact. However, of key importance in present context is the fact that such differences go to the weight of the evidence rather than, except in unusual instances, to the admissibility. The standard objection to proffered evidence of comparable sales is that differences in their dates and in the properties make the evidence either worthless or affirmatively misleading, presenting a legal issue for determination by the trial court in the exercise of its discretion. While as previously indicated this issue is usually resolved in favor of admissibility, the question should be resolved after the proponent of the evidence has had full opportunity to establish a foundation. It is significant to further note that there is thereby preserved a basis for appellate review where the alleged comparable sale evidence is excluded.
  While the $280,000.00 verdict in the present case was within the limits of the Government’s evidence, it was far below the amount appellant was attempting to prove. Appellant was entitled to the opportunity to establish a foundation for the offering of the comparable sale evidence, and if he could do so to have that evidence received. The granting of the motion to quash the subpoena duces tecum therefore constituted an abuse of discretion.
  Since the cause will be remanded for retrial we do not consider other alleged grounds of error.
  Reversed and remanded for new trial.
instruction: What follows is an opinion from a United States Court of Appeals.
  Intervenors who participated as parties at the courts of appeals should be counted as either appellants or respondents when it can be determined whose position they supported. For example, if there were two plaintiffs who lost in district court, appealed, and were joined by four intervenors who also asked the court of appeals to reverse the district court, the number of appellants should be coded as six.
  In some cases there is some confusion over who should be listed as the appellant and who as the respondent. This confusion is primarily the result of the presence of multiple docket numbers consolidated into a single appeal that is disposed of by a single opinion. Most frequently, this occurs when there are cross appeals and/or when one litigant sued (or was sued by) multiple litigants that were originally filed in district court as separate actions. The coding rule followed in such cases should be to go strictly by the designation provided in the title of the case. The first person listed in the title as the appellant should be coded as the appellant even if they subsequently appeared in a second docket number as the respondent and regardless of who was characterized as the appellant in the opinion.
  To clarify the coding conventions, consider the following hypothetical case in which the US Justice Department sues a labor union to strike down a racially discriminatory seniority system and the corporation (siding with the position of its union) simultaneously sues the government to get an injunction to block enforcement of the relevant civil rights law. From a district court decision that consolidated the two suits and declared the seniority system illegal but refused to impose financial penalties on the union, the corporation appeals and the government and union file cross appeals from the decision in the suit brought by the government. Assume the case was listed in the Federal Reporter as follows:
  United States of America,
  Plaintiff, Appellant
  v
  International Brotherhood of Widget Workers,AFL-CIO
  Defendant, Appellee.
  International Brotherhood of Widget Workers,AFL-CIO
  Defendants, Cross-appellants
  v
  United States of America.
  Widgets, Inc. & Susan Kuersten Sheehan, President & Chairman
  of the Board
  Plaintiff, Appellants,
  v
  United States of America,
  Defendant, Appellee.
  This case should be coded as follows:Appellant = United States, Respondents = International Brotherhood of Widget Workers Widgets, Inc., Total number of appellants = 1, Number of appellants that fall into the category "the federal government, its agencies, and officials" = 1, Total number of respondents = 3, Number of respondents that fall into the category "private business and its executives" = 2, Number of respondents that fall into the category "groups and associations" = 1.
  Your task is to identify the state of the first listed state or local government agency that is an appellant.
choices: not Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachussets Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New New New New North North Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode South South Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Wisconsin Wyoming Virgin Puerto District Guam not Panama