Filed: Mar. 12, 2012
Latest Update: Mar. 12, 2012
Summary: ORDER LAWRENCE K. KARLTON, District Judge. On March 5, 2012, the court issued an order instructing the parties to assume several findings of fact in their post trial briefs and, given these assumptions, address the following questions: (1) How, and on what potential bases other than responsibility for pollution, should the court apportion liability as to past costs between the parties ; and (2) How, and on what potential bases other than responsibility for pollution, should the court apportio
Summary: ORDER LAWRENCE K. KARLTON, District Judge. On March 5, 2012, the court issued an order instructing the parties to assume several findings of fact in their post trial briefs and, given these assumptions, address the following questions: (1) How, and on what potential bases other than responsibility for pollution, should the court apportion liability as to past costs between the parties ; and (2) How, and on what potential bases other than responsibility for pollution, should the court apportion..
More
ORDER
LAWRENCE K. KARLTON, District Judge.
On March 5, 2012, the court issued an order instructing the parties to assume several findings of fact in their post trial briefs and, given these assumptions, address the following questions: (1) How, and on what potential bases other than responsibility for pollution, should the court apportion liability as to past costs between the parties?; and (2) How, and on what potential bases other than responsibility for pollution, should the court apportion liability as to future costs between the parties? Order, ECF No. 907.
On March 9, 2012, Defendant TEO filed a request for clarification which states:
[W]e write to confirm that the questions the Court asked the Parties to address in the March 5, 2012 Order are in addition to, not in lieu of, the issues the Court initially permitted the Parties to brief at the conclusion of the trial. Both parties assume this was the Court's intent, but request clarification from the Court if this shared assumption is incorrect.
Def's Req., ECF No. 908.
The parties are correct in assuming that the questions the court asked the parties to address in the March 5, 2012 order are in addition to, and not in lieu of, the issues the court initially permitted the parties to brief at the conclusion of trial.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
