NORTHERN STATES POWER COMPANY v. CITY OF ASHLAND, 12-cv-602-bbc. (2015)
Court: District Court, E.D. Wisconsin
Number: infdco20150413a34
Visitors: 21
Filed: Apr. 10, 2015
Latest Update: Apr. 10, 2015
Summary: ORDER BARBARA B. CRABB , District Judge . Defendant Ashland County has asked the court to reconsider or correct the summary judgment opinion issued March 18, 2015. Dkt. #342. The opinion states that "defendant County admitted that the wood treatment chemical creosote has been disposed of at the site and that wood preservation activities occurred there at some time." Dkt. #341, at 32. However, defendant County correctly notes that it was letters and memoranda from defendant City of Ashland
Summary: ORDER BARBARA B. CRABB , District Judge . Defendant Ashland County has asked the court to reconsider or correct the summary judgment opinion issued March 18, 2015. Dkt. #342. The opinion states that "defendant County admitted that the wood treatment chemical creosote has been disposed of at the site and that wood preservation activities occurred there at some time." Dkt. #341, at 32. However, defendant County correctly notes that it was letters and memoranda from defendant City of Ashland ..
More
ORDER
BARBARA B. CRABB, District Judge.
Defendant Ashland County has asked the court to reconsider or correct the summary judgment opinion issued March 18, 2015. Dkt. #342. The opinion states that "defendant County admitted that the wood treatment chemical creosote has been disposed of at the site and that wood preservation activities occurred there at some time." Dkt. #341, at 32. However, defendant County correctly notes that it was letters and memoranda from defendant City of Ashland that contained admissions related to creosote and wood treatment. Dkt. #299, at ¶ 38. Accordingly, defendant County's motion, dkt. #342, is GRANTED, and the opinion issued March 18, 2015, at dkt. #341, is AMENDED on page 32 as follows: the sentence "However, defendant County admitted that the wood treatment chemical creosote has been disposed of at the site and that wood preservation activities occurred there at some time" is deleted and replaced with, "Defendant City's historical correspondence suggests that it believed that wood treatment chemical creosote had been disposed of at the site and that wood preservation activities occurred there at some time."
Further, I note that in the order section of the opinion, the docket number for plaintiff's motion for leave to file a surreply was incorrect. Paragraph 3 of the order is AMENDED to refer to docket #303, rather than docket #335.
Source: Leagle
