Town responds to amendment objection

I’ve only skimmed the Response to objection to amendment and Response to objection to amendment exhibits.  As expected, our attorney responds point for point.  I’ll post my comments when I have more time to read it thoroughly, but the bullets seem to be:

  • The motion is timely because the discovery was delayed and further proceedings have not begun (i.e. depositions).
  • WP was complicit in the initial high loading.
  • The emails, by their nature of being signed and dated provide sufficient specificity to the allegations.
  • WP’s attorney’s are also representing the modeling subcontractor who has not responded to requests for discovery of his internal documents, thus denying the town of the opportunity to be more specific about his alleged falsification of the model.

There’s an interesting chain of emails from late April 2009, just after the first “unexpected event”, that shows an almost daily exchange between Dave Ford and various WP people.  On the one hand, WP is saying that they would agree to say that the loading was a joint decision.  Yet earlier emails from February  show that Dave had proposed a loading of exactly 600,000 gpd and that was what was agreed upon.

With a five month extension, and all of this wrangling with motions, responses, responses to the response, etc. I have to wonder how far that half-million bucks is going to go.  The attorney’s for both sides must be loving this.  It’s a classic win-win.

Oh, and WP also filed their intention to respond to the response to the response.

I just hope we don’t end up with the lose-lose.

This entry was posted in RIB Lawsuit. Bookmark the permalink.