My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Case No. 03CW86 Reply to Motion to File Sur-Reply to Response to City of Steamboat Springs' Sur-Reply to Response to the State's Renewed Motion to Continue Trial
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
DayForward
>
5001-6000
>
Case No. 03CW86 Reply to Motion to File Sur-Reply to Response to City of Steamboat Springs' Sur-Reply to Response to the State's Renewed Motion to Continue Trial
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/1/2012 4:12:03 PM
Creation date
8/1/2012 1:52:05 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
Description
Case No. 03CW86 Reply to Motion to File Sur-Reply to Response to City of Steamboat Springs' Sur-Reply to Response to the State's Renewed Motion to Continue Trial, or in the alternative, motion to amend case manamgement order
State
CO
Date
6/6/2005
Author
Schneider, Susan
Title
Case No. 03CW86 Reply to Motion to File Sur-Reply to Response to City of Steamboat Springs' Sur-Reply to Response to the State's Renewed Motion to Continue Trial
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Court Documents
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
3
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
2. The Applicant argues that the State misstates the status of discovery. The <br />State did misstate the objector who filed the Interrogatories, Requests for <br />Production of Documents and Requests for Admissions, but did not misstate <br />the fact that the objector's counsel who filed those Interrogatories, Requests <br />for Production of Documents and Requests for Admissions agreed to file <br />those requests on behalf of all of the objectors during a joint conference call, <br />although only counsel for the Town of Oak Creek's signed the requests. The <br />Applicant states that "[a]s part of the settlement negotiations and ultimate <br />settlement agreement," the Town of Oak Creek agreed that the Applicant did <br />not have to respond. First, until June 3, 2005, there was no settlement <br />agreement. Second, counsel for the Town of Oak Creek has represented that <br />it did not agree that the Applicant did not have to respond to the requests. <br />Third, the settlement agreement presented to counsel on June 3, 2005 does not <br />contain any such provision. <br />3. The Applicant argues that it has complied with its disclosure requirements, yet <br />in the same paragraph concedes that it filed supplemental disclosures when <br />additional information was requested. <br />4. Finally, the Applicant states that the State's Reply was particularly egregious <br />because it misstated that Rule 11 became effective on November 18, 2004 <br />when its effective date was January 1, 2005. The State filed the Rule as an <br />attachment, and thus, was not egregiously misrepresenting the facts. The rule <br />was promulgated on November 18, 2004 and should still apply to this case <br />because discovery of this case was stayed until January 14, 2005 and the Case <br />Management Order was not entered until May. <br />WHEREFORE, the State hereby respectfully requests that this Court deny the Motion to <br />file a Sur - Reply. However, if the Applicant's Motion to File a Sur -Reply is granted, the <br />State respectfully requests this Court to review the answers above. <br />Submitted this 6th day of June, 2005. <br />JOHN SUTHERS <br />Attorney General <br />A duly signed original is on file with the Office of the Attomey General for the <br />State of Colorado <br />/s/ <br />SUSAN J. SCHNEIDER, #19961 <br />Assistant Attorney General <br />Natural Resources and Environment Section <br />Attorneys for CWCB <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.