Laserfiche WebLink
04/05/99 17:31 FAX 3037962777 BURNS FIGA & WILL Z020 <br />ANSWER NO. 5: The contract to purchase the property is dated May 8, 1998 and the <br />deed is dated June 15, 1998. <br />INTERROGATORY NO. 6: Identify and describe your knowledge, from any source, <br />of any and all reclamation tasks to take place on the property referred to in paragraph 24 of the <br />LLC's complaint. Include in your response the identity of the source of your knowledge, the <br />extent of your knowledge, the date you came into that knowledge, and any specific portion of the <br />reclamation plan upon which you rely in responding to this interrogatory. <br />ANSWER NO. 6: Objection. Vague. MidCon asserts that reclamation should take <br />place pursuant to the reclamation plan. On the other hand, DMG has asserted that it can and will <br />do reclamation as it sees fit. Finally, one of the purposes of this lawsuit is to obtain orders from <br />the court regarding specific reclamation tasks. MidCon prefers that DMG complete the work in <br />progress, including top soiling and revegetating, correct slumps or failures as well as resolve <br />water discharge problems caused by DMG's operations to the satisfaction of the Colorado <br />Department of Public Health and Environment, establish the roadways to the property to the <br />extent they have been interrupted. Since the Huntsman project, the Bear Creek project and the <br />Dutch Creek Diversion project are not included in the approved reclamation plan and constitute <br />major deviations from it, it is not possible to relate tasks to be performed within the scope of the <br />approved reclamation plan. The January 22, 1998 accounting describes tasks DMG has planned. <br />See also letter from Steve Renner to Mike Long and others dated May 8, 1998 and PKA -6 -372 <br />and PKA -9 -424_ <br />INTERROGATORY NO. 7: In paragraph 37 of the LLC's Third -party Complaint, the <br />LLC alleges that there exists "a contract entered into by, among others, DMG, MCR and MCR's <br />creditors who are all parties to and bound by the Liquidation Plan." Given this allegation, does <br />the LLC intend to seek the consent of all those bound by the alleged contract or Liquidation Plan <br />as to any changes in reclamation to be done at the Coal Basin site which may occur as a result of <br />the present lawsuit? Please include in your response the specific basis for your answer_ <br />ANSWER NO. 7: Objection. Calls for a legal conclusion_ MidCon's intent is to see <br />that DMG abides by the reclamation plan and if it does not do so voluntarily, plans to seek a <br />court order to that effect. <br />INTERROGATORY NO. 8: State the factual and/or legal basis for the LLC's <br />allegation, pleading, statement, belief, or contention in paragraph 38 that, as owner of property <br />upon which some of the reclamation activities have taken place and will occur in the future, the <br />LLC is a third -party beneficiary of the Reclamation Plan. <br />ANSWER NO. 8: Reclamation activities on the property owned by MidCon will, if <br />properly performed, enhance the value of the property and if improperly performed will decrease <br />the value of the property. <br />INTERROGATORY NO. 9: State the factual and/or legal basis for the LLC's <br />allegation, pleading, statement, belief, or contention in paragraph 39 of the LLC's Third -Party <br />Complaint that DMG has stated its intention to perform reclamation in Coal Basin such that it <br />4 <br />