Free Letter - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

`-ti., .` ‘ ` `Case 3:02-cv-01718-RNC Document 94 Filed 11/1 CI 2004 Page 1 of 3
0 cu I .
o
¤
ggg Kosrorr t HARDIN
G) 3 I
g LE, Attorneys at Law , Us MARECENED
8 O 28 North Main Street ’ JU
U West Hartford, Connecticut 06107 I UGE
0 Teleph ez {860} 521-7004
tr` E 1=ax?Is·s0; 521-3352 I mm! SEP I5 A 2
gl M. K I ff l C l ff dh d' .
ai§..i... i.°€iZ.a.g u¤Na'°’iI§.@ §Gi§ttZEa.2£.i2E§.E§$
ww M°Queeney Q é§LEg'ldh&fdlHg.C01ll
M .
.3 'il · 6 September 14, 2004 I
Q -I-J
cv 5 ‘
m PQ he Honorable Donna F. Martinez I
E District Court
4-1 50 Main Street
uu Q,. . ` ford, Connecticut 06103 I
O Q ‘
cn v
g N RE: Joseph A. Schiavone Corporation et al v Kasden et al
EL A 3 3:02CVl7l8 (RNC)
Q •··l I [_] I
U M 1 . `
.U cu · Pretihng Conference Request
¤ 'E I Plaintiffs’ Motion for Partial Summar Jud ment
g G) . E ....._.._.;..;._;_..X_€....;
'O * ar Judge Martinez:
c:
as un
si § In accordance with the Court’s Supersedlng Scheduling Orrlerl? garding Case Management
il cu Plan, of September 2, 2003, (the "CMO"), I write to request a prefilin conference with respect to
il if `Pl·aintiffs’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment.
r-I
O ~ ·
5 A grant ofthe motion, or a partial grant the motion, will narro · and simplify the issues for .
FCI a
,,_, Q trial. I
o
·r·|
§ *5 The basis for the proposed motion for partial summary j udgmen is that the plaintiffs believe
8 E that discovery has shown that plaintiffs can establish a prima facie case s required under CERCLA
'U rl? and the controllin precedent in this Circuit. BF Goodrich et al. v. Betk ski etal., 99 F.3d. 505, (2d
J 2
zi g Cir., 1996), sets the elements for a prima facie case, at page 514, as:
P 8*
3 EI I Q gil) the defendants are within one ofthe four categories o I responsible
id, G, -- Qarties enumerated in 42 USC §9607(a); I
nu .c: I N “‘ > - · · · -
,.. it Q CL athe site is the facility as defined in 42 USC §9601(9 ;
U qj LLQ Z{§g)}there is a release or threatened release of a hazardous -.ubstance at
2 __§ S2 rtmhgéfacilityg I
E"' L; _¤····=·==· (:-5 plaintiff incurred costs responding to the release •¤ threatened
,6 [L z tztatjaase; and
qi E E the costs and response actions conform to t e national
S lcv "ctnntingency plan.
"’ E
m" Cf; .3 Once a plaintiff makes a prima facie showing, a defenda t may avoid
it : t
as to
t s 2;
E I
--...___________·
·- - ‘··· I -'-'-`-`-`. . .
...- L,. _ lllllllllll
·---..._________

4 I i Case 3:02-cv-01718-RNC Document 94 Filed 11/1 Ci 2004 Page 2 of 3
The Honorable Donna F. Martinez
September 14, 2004
Page 2
liability only if it establishes by a preponderance of the an idence that
the release or threatened release was caused by an act o i] God, an act
of war, certain acts or omissions of third parties other th those with
whom the defendant had a contractual relationship, or a it ombination
of these reasons .... lf the plaintiff can establish each ofth primafcxcie
elements on undisputed facts, and the defendant i unable to
demonstrate by a preponderance ofthe evidence that a I affirmative
defense applies, summary judgment on liability is a propriate ....
Significantly, it is not "not required that the [plaintiff] show that a
specific defendant's waste caused incurrence of cleanuni costs" ........
[b]ecause CERCLA imposes strict liability, there is o causation
requirement. [Internal citations omitted.] _
Betkoskz`, at 514-515. I
Resolution of some or all ofthe five factors required by Betkoski II ill simplify the trial of this
matter and save both the Court in the parties time. The case will beco in e a matter of resolving the
allocation of costs and responsibility.
Key dates under current orders for this case are:
October 26, 2004 Depositions of Defendan Experts
November 3, 2004 Mediation before Magist te Judge Domia Martinez T
November 30, 2004 P1aintiffs‘ Reply Expert 'sclosure Reports
January 26, 2005 Deposition of Plaintiffs’ 'i eply Experts
February 25, 2005 Defendants reply Expert ]| isclosure Reports
April 26, 2005 Deposition Defendants o i] Reply Experts
April 26, 2005 Completion of all Discov
May 27, 2005 Joint Trial Memorandum I
June 2005 Trial Ready List
This request for prefiling conference was discussed with Mr. O] arles Nicol, Esq., counsel
to NUSCO and CL&P on September 14, 2004; Mr. Nicol agreed that wi ill respect to issues (2)-—the
site is a CERCLA facility——and (3)»~—there has been a release of a ardous substance- above
there may be no factual dispute. Notwithstanding the lack of agreeme I] on points (1), (4) and (5),
Plaintiffs believe that a motion for summary judgment is appropriat on all Betkoski elements.
Sincerely,
pm 1 ‘ · ‘
Nicholas J. Hardi
cc: Michael Schiavone 0 ‘
Certificate of Service, attached.

{ if M Case 3:02-cv-01718-RNC Document 94 Filed 11/1 •i 2004 Page 3 of 3 I
Certificate of Service 5
I hereby certify that a copy of the above was mailed or delivere in hand on September 14,
2004 to all counsel and pro se parties of record as follows: 1
Connecticut Light and Power Company Charles J. Nicol, sq. [
Angela L. Ruggie o, Esq.
Northeast Utilitie Service Company
1>.o. Box 270
Hartford, CT 061 WI 1-0270
Tel: 665-3431 665-3495
Fax: 665-5504
Northeast Utilities Service Company Charles J. Nicol, 1: sq.
Angela L. Ruggie o, Esq.
Duncan Ross •l?l ay, Esq.
Northeast Utilitie Service Company
1¤.o. Box 270 [
Hartford, CT 061 1-0270 l
Tel: 665-3431 665-3495 I
Fax: 665-5504
MIM `
` I `i;t—
Nicholas J. Hardi l`
l
F;\WPDUCS\Schiavone\PC13 2057 I l\l‘cd Plcadings\preiiling conf requcstwpd i
ZD57-I [.04