Laserfiche WebLink
221 <br />1 augmentation was filed in Case 89-Cw-32 at the end <br /> 2 of August of 1989. The period in which opposition <br /> 3 ld b <br />d <br />fil <br />d <br />t <br />i <br /> cou <br />e <br />e <br />exp <br />re <br />at <br />he end of October. There <br /> 4 were a number of objectors. <br /> 5 We provided copies of our engineering <br />' 6 report, either at the beginning of the case or as <br /> 7 people filed statements of opposition, to all <br />' a attorneys in the case, including Mr. Hess. wee also <br /> 9 tendered discovery requests to all of the objectors. <br />~' l0 t <br />w <br />i <br />d <br />f <br />ll th <br />b <br /> e rece <br />ve <br />jec <br />ors. <br />responses <br />rom a <br />e o <br />' 11 We have not received any discovery <br /> 12 requests from any objector to date, and I ascribed <br /> 13 that in my opinion to the completeness of the <br /> la engineering report which we have furnished, I think, <br /> 15 in my experience, that indicates that, at least: at <br /> 16 this stage of the process, they don't have any <br />' 17 si <br />nifica <br />ue <br />t <br />ti <br /> g <br />n <br />q <br />s <br />ons. <br />' 18 Now, they have requested the court <br /> 19 extend the discovery cutoff, which is now March 5, <br /> 20 because there is a pretrial conference scheduled <br /> 21 March 16. We will oppose that. <br /> 22 There is still time for objectors to <br /> 23 tender discovery to us. Obviously, we are more <br />' 2a than willin <br />t <br />d <br />t <br />di <br />tl <br /> g <br />o respon <br />scovery, <br />promp <br />o any <br />y <br />' 25 because Battle Mountain wishes to move the case <br /> AGREN, BLANDO & BILLINGS <br /> <br />