Laserfiche WebLink
INTERROGATORY NO. 18: When MCR and/or M &E performed reclamation and/or <br />remedial work at the Coal Basin mine site, did they redisturb areas which had been reclaimed? <br />In responding to this interrogatory, use the meaning of terms you used in making the allegations <br />contained in your third claim for relief and set forth those meanings in your response to this <br />interrogatory. If areas were redisturbed, identify the specific area redisturbed by MCR's or <br />M &E's actions, when the area was redisturbed, whether MCR and/or M &E reclaimed these <br />areas, and if re- reclaimed, when such reclamation occurred and the cost of this reclamation. <br />ANSWER NO. 18: No. <br />INTERROGATORY NO. 19: In the second, third, and fourth claims for relief in the <br />Amended Third -Party Complaint, MCR and the Trustee allege that they have been damaged by <br />the Division's actions. In their Rule 26 disclosure, MCR and the Trustee state that they are not <br />requesting damages per se. State the factual or legal basis and explanation for this allegation, <br />pleading, statement, belief or contention including an explanation of what type of damages the <br />third -party plaintiffs seek and whether they are only seeking the court to determine the credits <br />and/or expenditures to be made on reclamation of the mine site or whether they are seeking a <br />payment of money from the Division. <br />ANSWER NO. 19: MCR seeks a determination as to credits for reclamation activities, <br />and as to expenditures reasonably necessary to complete reclamation. <br />INTERROGATORY NO. 20: Identify all steps MCR and the Trustee have taken to <br />mitigate the damages alleged in the second, third, and fourth claims for relief in the Amended <br />Third -Party Complaint. <br />ANSWER NO. 20: The activities of MCR to mitigate damages have been to file oral <br />and written objections to further expenditures of money for inappropriate activities and <br />ultimately initiating this lawsuit against DMG. <br />INTERROGATORY NO. 21: State the factual or legal basis for the allegation, <br />pleading, statement, belief or contention in paragraph 43 of the Amended Third -Party Complaint <br />that DMG's reclamation activities in Coal Basin since 1994 have been carried out in a manner <br />that has incurred expenses far in excess of what is reasonable. Include in your response the <br />definition of "reasonable" as used in paragraph 43; an identification of the specific reclamation <br />tasks by acreage, amount of dirt, work hours or other appropriate unit of measurement, for each <br />task which pertains to or is included in the allegations of this paragraph; identify what cost would <br />have been, or would be reasonable for each task; and as to each expense alleged to be in excess <br />of what is reasonable, the date MCR and/or the Trustee knew of that the expense had been <br />incurred. <br />ANSWER NO. 21: See direct testimony of Greg Lewicki filed in the Pitkin Iron <br />administrative claim with the U.S. Bankruptcy Court on December 29, 1995. See also Mike <br />Savage report dated July 7, 1995. See also bids obtained by Mid - Continent Resources for <br />9 <br />