WP has filed their surreply memorandum response to Wolfeboro’s response to their objection to Wolfeboro’s motion to amend the complaint.  It’s called a surreply and as I understand it must be very brief.  It is.

Their argument is more defined and emphatic.  They are stating plainly that the town overloaded the RIB in direct disregard for Wright Pierce’s start up recommendations and that caused the tunneling and breakout that is occurring.  They support their arguments with excerpts from their expert’s report which claims that Wolfeboro declined to work with WP in investigating the problems early on and to explore recommendations to mitigate the damage.

They also say that procedurally, this amended complaint violates the rules for submission because it so changes the nature of the defense that they would have to go back and re-engage their expert witnesses to refute the new allegations at considerable expense.  They assert that the deadlines that were set for expert testimony were proposed by Wolfeboro to facilitate early arbitration.

At least Wolfeboro didn’t file an intention to reply to the surreply to the reply to the objection to the motion to amend.  I hope the court now has everything that they need to rule on this leave to amend.