Joint Appendix Vol I — Burlington v. Dague

Supreme Court brief1992

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

itt, JS. 7

MAR 12 1992

eee oe IE CLERK

No. 91-810

In The

Supreme Court of the United States

October Term, 1991

CITY OF BURLINGTON,

Petitioner,

vs.

ERNEST DAGUE, SR., ERNEST DAGUE, JR.,

BETTY DAGUE, AND ROSE A. BESSETTE,

Respondents.

On Writ Of Certiorari To The United States

Court Of Appeals For The Second Circuit

JOINT APPENDIX

VOLUME I, PAGES 1-218

Micnaet B. CLapr* WituaMm W. Pearson*

Rosert R. McKearin Mo ..oy, Jones &

Freperick S. Lane III Donanuug, P.C.

Dinse, ERDMANN & CLapp 33 North Stone Avenue

209 Battery Street Suite 2100

Burlington, Vermont Tucson, Arizona 85701

05402-0988 Telephone: (602) 620-5520

Telephone: (802) 864-5751 Counsel for Respondents

Counsel for Petitioner

*Counsel of Record

Petition for Certiorari Filed November 18, 1991

Certiorari Granted January 27, 1992

COCKLE LAW BRIEF PRINTING CO., (800) 225-6964

OR CALL COLLECT (402) 342-2831

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Volume I

Plaintiffs’ Complaint filed October 9, 1985,

included in Appendix to Petition for Cer-

tiorari at pp. 244-269

Opinion and Order of United States District

Court for the District of Vermont, March 26,

1986, included in — to Petition for

Certiorari at pp. 44-

; pe go and Order of Second Circuit Court

peals, August 20, 1986, included in

Appendix to Petition for Certiorari at pp.

142-144

Findings of Fact, Opinion and Order of

United States District Court for the District

of Vermont, October 17, 1989, included in

Appendix to Petition for Certiorari at pp.

59-115

Plaintiffs’ Application for Attorney’s Fees

. and Costs November 1, 1989

Memorandum in Support of Application for

Fees and Costs, November 1, 1989

Volume II

10.

Memorandum in Opposition to Application

for Fees and Costs, November 13, 1989

Reply Memorandum in Support of Applica-

tion for Fees and Costs, November 24, 1989 ..

Supplemental Memorandum in Opposition

to Application for Fees and Costs, December

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

TABLE OF CONTENTS - Continued

Reply Memorandum in Support of an Award

of Fees and Costs, January 3, 1990............

Opinion and Order of the United States Dis-

trict Court for the District of Vermont, April

2, 1990, included in Appendix to Petition for

Certiorari at pp. 130-134

Petition for Enforcement of Order, April 17,

i EEE

Memorandum in Opposition to Plaintiff’s

Petition for Enforcement of Order, April 27,

|), PI

Plaintiffs’ Response to Defendant’s Opposi-

tion to Enforcement of Court Order, May 1,

Order of the United States District Court for

the District of Vermont, May 4, 1990..........

Judgment of United States District Court for

the District of Vermont, May 7, 1990,

included in Appendix to Petition for Cer-

tiorari at pp. 116-117

Opinion of Second Circuit Court of Appeals,

June 12, 1991 included in Appendix to Peti-

tion for Certiorari at pp. 1-

Plaintiff's Bill of Costs, June 25, 1991 ..........

Order of Second Circuit Court of Appeals,

August 20, 1991 included in Appendix to

Petition for Certiorari at pp. 145-146

Supplemental Application for Attorney’s

Fees and Costs, June 25, 1991.................

ili

TABLE OF CONTENTS - Continued

Page

22. Application to Second Circuit Court of

Appeals for Attorney’s Fees and Costs, June

2 CEU U GG wes scescccesccccccosccccccces: 362

23. Order of United States District Court for the

District of Vermont, October 11, 1991,

included in Appendix to Petition for Cer-

tiorari at pp. 137-138

24. Order of Second Circuit Court of Appeals,

October 25, 1991, included in Appendix to

Petition for Certiorari at pp. 38-39

Oct. 9, 1985

DOCKET ENTRIES

COMPLAINT

March 26, 1986 63 OPINION and ORDER - FSB -

Oct. 17, 1989

215

Plaintiff's request for preliminary

injunctive relief is DENIED and the

City cause the Landfill’s gas ven-

tilating system and leachate collec-

tion system to become fully

operational by May 26, 1986. Cy to

attys. (P#3) wf.

FINDINGS OF FACT, OPINION

AND ORDER - FSB - Count I; the

City of Burlington has not violated

42:6925(a) or 42:6930(a). Count 2; (a)

the City was generating methane

gas, but abated that practice in

12/85; (b) the City continues to dis-

charge pollutants into waters of the

U.S. without permit (40 C.R.F. [sic]

§ 257.3-3(a)); and (c) the City has not

contaminated an underground

drinking water source beyond the

Landfill boundary. Count 3; the

Landfill may present an imminent

and substantial endangerment to

health or the environment and

therefore operates in violation of

42:6972(a)(1)(B). Count 4; the City is

violating the Clean Water Act by

discharging pollutants into the

Intervale without authorization.

Count 5; The City is violating Ver-

mont’s Groundwater Protection Law

by altering the character and quality

of the groundwater. It is ordered

that the City close the Landfill on or

i le i i ee i ie

;

Nov. 1, 1989

Nov. 13, 1989

Nov. 24, 1989

Dec. 8, 1989

Jan. 3, 1990

April 2, 1990

April 17, 1990

before January 1, 1990. Civil penal-

ties shall not be imposed pursuant

to 42:6928(g) or 33:1319(d). The

Court orders Deft to pay the costs of

litigation, including attorney and

expert witness fees, to be assessed.

Cy. to attys.

216 APPLICATION For Award of Fees

and Costs by Pitf.

217 MEMORANDUM In Support of

P#216.

219 MEMORANDUM in Opposition to

Pitfs’ Application for Award of Fees

and Costs (P#216).

222 REPLY MEMORANDUM in support

of application for award of attys’

fees and costs by Pltfs. amn

224 MEMORANDUM (Supplemental) In

Opposition to Request for Atty’s

Fees of Pitf by Deft. cab

229 REPLY in support of an award of

fees and costs by Pltfs. amn

232 OPINION AND ORDER - FSB - Pitf

shall recover from the Deft the sum

of $198,027.50 for attys’ fees, plus

necessary expenses in the amount of

$10,929.66, together with a 25%

enhancement of the total attys’ fees

in the amount of $49,506.87 plus tax-

able costs. Cys to attys. amn

233 PETITION for Enforcement of Order

by Pitfs. wf

April 27, 1990 234 MEMORANDUM in opposition to

May 1, 1990

May 4, 1990

May 7, 1990

June 25, 1991

Pitfs’ petition for enforcement of

order by Deft (P#233) amn

238 RESPONSE TO Deft’s opposition to

enforcement of court order by Pitfs.

239 ORDER - FSB - Deft’s motion for an

entry of judgment is granted in part.

The pltf’s petition for enforcement is

denied pending appeal. The court

directs the clerk of court to enter

judgment as to Cts I, II, Ill and IV of

the court’s Opinion and Order,

dated 10/16/89 and the Opinion

and Order dated 4/2/90. Cys to

attys.

240 JUDGMENT IN A CIVIL CASE -

The City of Burlington, VT, close the

Landfill on/before 1/1/90. cvl pen-

alties shall not be imposed pursuant

to 42 USC 6928(g) or 33 USC

1319(d). The pltfs shall recover from

the deft the sum of $198,027.50 for

atty fees, plus necessary expenses in

the amt of $10,929.66 together with a

25% enhancement of the total atty’s

fees in the amount of $49,506.87 plus

taxable costs. Judgment is entered

for the deft as to Ct 1; the deft, in

part, and the pltfs, in part, as to Ct Il

and the plitfs as to Cts III and IV.

Notice to Litigators appeal date of

6/6/90. Cys to attys. cab

248 BILL of Costs by Heather Briggs,

atty for plitf. gei

June 25, 1991

Jul. 17, 1991

Oct. 15, 1991

249 MEMORANDUM in Support of Bill

of Costs (P#248). gei

250 SUPPLEMENTAL APPLICATION

251

256

by pltf for Award of Fees and Costs.

gei

AFFIDAVIT of Heather Briggs, Esq.

in support of Bill of Costs with

amended cost relative to service fees

($10.98 sought in lieu of $17.25 origi-

nal claim). rpw

ORDER ~ FSB - Pltf shall recover

from Deft supplemental atty’s fees

in the amount of $24,113.00, and

supplemental expenses in the

amount of $2,707.61, together with a

25% enhancement of the atty’s fees

or $6,028.25. Cys. to attys. amn

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE

DISTRICT OF VERMONT

ERNEST DAGUE, SR., BETTY L. )

DAGUE, ADMINISTRATRIX )

OF THE ESTATE OF ERNEST J. )

DAGUE, II BETTY DAGUE and ) Civil Action No.

ROSE A. BESSETTE ) 85-269

. )

CITY OF BURLINGTON )

PLAINTIFFS’ APPLICATION FOR

AWARD OF FEES AND COSTS

Plaintiffs submit this application for their costs of

litigation, including attorney and expert witness fees and

expenses, incurred in this action. The Resource Conserva-

tion and Recovery Act of 1976 (“RCRA”), 42 U.S.C. § 6901

et seq., and the Clean Water Act (“CWA”), 33 U.S.C. § 1251

et seq., provide that the prevailing or substantially pre-

vailing party may be awarded costs of litigation, includ-

ing reasonable attorney and expert witness fees. 42 U.S.C.

§ 6972(e); 33 U.S.C. § 1365(d).

By Order dated 16 October 1989, this Court ordered

that such costs and fees were to be paid by Defendant in

an amount to be assessed by the court. Plaintiffs’ counsel

pursued Defendant's statutory liability on a contingency

fee basis. Indeed, to date, Plaintiffs’ counsel has not

received any payment for its services. In support of this

application, Plaintiffs submit affidavits and other docu-

mentation to substantiate the requested fees and

expenses.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request that,

based upon the attached affidavits of counsel, legal mem-

orandum and other supporting documents, attorneys fees

in the amount of $198,027.50 be awarded to Plaintiffs and

that this amount be enhanced 100% pursuant to Pennsyl-

vania v. Delaware Valley Citizens’ Council for Clean Air, 107

S.Ct. 3078 (1987), Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (1983)

and Johnson v. Georgia Highway Express, Inc., 488 F.2d 714

(7th Cir. 1984). Plaintiffs further request that the court

award $7,295.00 for expert witness fees and $3,634.66 for

attorneys expenses incurred in this matter.

Burlington, Vermont. 31 October 1989.

DOWNS RACHLIN & MARTIN

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

By: /s/ Richard N. Bland

Richard N. Bland

199 Main Street

P.O. Box 190-0190

Burlington, VT 05402-0190

(802) 863-2375

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE

DISTRICT OF VERMONT

ERNEST DAGUE, SR., BETTY L. )

DAGUE, ADMINISTRATRIX )

OF THE ESTATE OF ERNEST J. )

DAGUE, II BETTY DAGUE and ) Civil Action No.

ROSE A. BESSETTE ) 85-269

. )

CITY OF BURLINGTON )

MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’

APPLICATION FOR AWARD OF FEES AND COSTS

Plaintiffs submit this memorandum in support of

their application for attorney and expert witness fees and

expenses.

1. Statement of Facts

Plaintiffs Ernest Dague, Sr., Ernest Dague, Jr., Betty

Dague and Rose A. Bessette brought this action against

the City of Burlington, Vermont (“the City”) for alleged

violations of federal and state law arising out of the

operation of the Burlington Municipal Disposal Grounds

(“the Landfill”). Plaintiffs commenced this action under

the citizen suit provisions of the Resource Conservation

and Recovery Act of 1976 (“RCRA”), 42 U.S.C. § 6972,

and the Clean Water Act (“CWA”), 33 U.S.C. § 1365, and

under pendent state claims. Plaintiffs sought injunctive

relief, imposition of civil penalties, compensatory and

punitive damages for their pendent state claims, costs,

and attorneys fees.

Trial by court was held from May 8 - 11, 1989, on

Defendant’s statutory liability under RCRA and the

CWA, and Vermont’s Groundwater Protection Law, 10

V.S.A. § 1410. On 16 October 1989, the Court issued its

Findings of Fact, Opinion and Order, finding Defendant

liable on four of the five statutory counts of Plaintiffs’

Complaint. Specifically, the Court concluded: the City

generated methane gas in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 6945(a)

and 40 C.F.R. § 257.3-8(a)(2), until December 27, 1985; the

City continues to discharge pollutants into the waters of

the United States without a NPDES permit, in violation of

42 US.C. § 6945(a), 40 C.FR. § 257.3-3(a), and 33 U.S.C.

§ 1311; and the City’s Landfill may present an imminent

and substantial endangerment to public health or the

environment, and therefore its continued operation vio-

lates 42 U.S.C. § 6972(a) (1) (B). The Court further found

that the City is violating Vermont’s Groundwater Protec-

tion Law, by altering the character and quality of the

groundwater beneath and north of the Landfill. The

Court ordered the City to close the Landfill on or before

January 1, 1990.

“Having determined that plaintiffs have substantially

prevailed in both their RCRA and CWA claims,” the

Court ordered Defendant to pay the costs of litigation,

including reasonable attorney and expert witness fees, to

be assessed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 6972(e) and 33 U.S.C.

§ 1365(d). Plaintiffs now move for an award of their costs

of litigation, including attorney and expert witness fees

and expenses incurred in this action.

Il. Argument and Authority

The starting point for any calculation of attorneys

fees is the “lodestar,” the product of a reasonable hourly

rate and the number of hours reasonably expended on

substantive issues on which the petitioner satisfies the

statutory threshold of success. Sierra Club v. EPA, 769 F.2d

796, 23 ERC 1001, 1002 (D.C. Cir. 1985); Copeland v. Mar-

shall, 641 F.2d 880, 891 (D.C. Cir. 1980) (en banc). After the

lodestar is calculated, a determination must be made as to

whether any enhancement of the lodestar is appropriate.

Sierra Club, 769 F.2d at 809-10.

A. Calculation of the Lodestar

This Court has already determined that Plaintiffs

have substantially prevailed on their federal claims,

thereby entitling them to a fully compensatory fee award.

Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (1983). All that remains

to be decided is whether the fees sought by Plaintiffs are

based on “reasonable” rates and “reasonable” hours. “In

computing the fee, counsel for [Plaintiffs as] prevailing

parties should be paid, as is traditional with attorneys

compensated by a fee-paying client, ‘for all time reason-

ably expended on a matter.” Save Our Sound Fisheries

Association v. Callaway, 429 F.Supp. 1136, 1147 (D.R.1.

1977) (analysis utilized in civil rights actions applicable to

environmental cases) (quoting S. Rep. No. 94-1011, 94th

Cong., 2d Sess. at 6 (1976)).

Plaintiffs’ attorneys have submitted an affidavit stat-

ing their rates are those usually charged to clients who

pay on an hourly basis, (Exhibit 1), as well as affidavits

from other attorneys in Burlington, Vermont stating that

the last applicable rate of $125 per hour for Mr. Pearson

while at Downs Rachlin & Martin (he is currently practic-

ing in Tucson, Arizona in the field of environmental law

and his current billing rate is $170 per hour), $80 per hour

for Mr. Bland and various other rates for Plaintiffs’ attor-

neys and legal assistants are reasonable. (Exhibits 4, 5,

and 6). Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886 (1989). Further,

Plaintiffs’ application is supported by itemized, contem-

poraneous records for all time expended. (Exhibit 1 and

Affidavit of William W. Pearson). The descriptive entries

show that all time spent was reasonably necessary.

Accordingly, Plaintiffs submit that the appropriate

lodestar is $198,027.50 in attorneys fees.

B. Enhancing the Lodestar

The next step to consider is whether an enhancement

of the lodestar amount is appropriate. Pennsylvania v.

Delaware Valley Citizens’ Council for Clean Air, 107 S.Ct.

3078 (1987) (“Delaware Valley II”); Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461

U.S. 424 (1983); and Johnson v. Georgia Highway Express,

Inc., 488 F.2d 714 (7th Cir. 1984). An enhancement is

appropriate here.

The purpose behind applying an enhancement or

multiplier is to attract competent counsel. SPIRG of New

Jersey v. AT&T Bell Laboratories, 842 F.2d 1436, 27 ERC

1409, 1421 (3rd Cir. 1988); Delaware Valley II, 107 S.Ct.

3078 (1987). Simply stated, if plaintiffs’ attorneys can

receive as a maximum only the lodestar amount, after

risking complete nonpayment as well as the hardships

imposed by delay, lack of cash-flow, and out-of-pocket

expenses, then competent counsel will be reluctant to

serve on behalf of private attorneys general. The purpose

underlying the “multiplier” is to balance the inherent

inequities between plaintiffs and fee-paying defendants

and to reward attorneys who take on public interest cases

and achieve substantial results.

Some of the factors to consider in determining

whether an enhancement is appropriate include: the risk

and the amount involved; the novelty of the issues raised

or the difficulties in prosecuting the case; the unde-

sirability of the case; the skill required, and the experi-

ence and ability of the attorneys; the preclusion from

other employment by the attorneys because of this case;

the delay; and the results obtained. Johnson v Georgia

Highway Express, Inc., 488 F.2d 714 (7th Cir. 1984).

In this case, consideration of the above factors fully

supports an enhancement of the lodestar amount by

100%.

1. Contingency/Risk Factor

A major factor in determining whether the fee should

be enhanced is whether the fee arrangement with the

clients is fixed or contingent. See Delaware Valley II. As

described in the attached affidavit by Plaintiffs’ counsel,

all work associated with the Defendant's statutory lia-

bility was taken on a contingent fee basis: that is, had

Plaintiffs not prevailed on their statutory claims, counsel

for Plaintiffs would not be compensated at all for their

services on these claims.

_— ~~?

A contingency multiplier is also awarded when nec-

essary to attract competent counsel. SPIRG of New Jersey,

Inc. v. AT&T, 842 F.2d 1436, 1451 (3rd Cir. 1988). Without

a possible adjustment for risk in this case, Plaintiffs

“would have faced subsiantial difficulties in finding

counsel in the local or other relevant market.” Id. (quot-

ing Delaware Valley II, O’Connor, J., concurring).!

In this case, it would have been extremely difficult

for Plaintiffs to have obtained other local counsel of simi-

lar competence? who were willing to sue Vermont's larg-

est municipality and pursue their claims under RCRA

and the CWA? (under this type of fee arrangement),

asserting inter alia that the City’s Landfill may present an

imminent and substantial endangerment to public health

or the environment and, therefore, should be closed.

The novelty of the issues presented by Plaintiffs’

statutory claims, the complexity of RCRA and the CWA,

and the magnitude of the regulations thereunder cannot

be overstated. A perusal of the case law of citizen suits

under RCRA and the CWA reveals how few, if any, citi-

zens have (1) commenced an action with the statutory

claims presented here and (2) prevailed on those claims.

' The outlay of out-of-pocket expenses alone in this type

of action would be prohibitive for most attorneys in the Bur-

lington area.

? See attached affidavit of Plaintiffs’ counsel for the expe-

rience and abilities of Mr. Pearson and Mr. Bland.

> It should be noted that neither RCRA nor the CWA

afford the prevailing or substantially nei. party with the

right to recover damages.

Moreover, Plaintiffs faced substantial difficulties in

prosecuting this case during the past four years. The

volume of documents pertaining just to Plaintiffs’ statu-

tory claims that were reviewed and analyzed by their

counsel are stored in 11 “banker’s boxes”. A review of the

record of this case also reveals how nonresponsive Defen-

dant was to discovery and deadlines, forcing Plaintiffs to

file motions to compel discovery and for sanctions.

Defendant also vigorously contested facts and liability on

each of the statutory claims through the trial on the

merits.

2. Delay Enhancer

Under a delay theory of enhancement, all time spent

over the life of this matter should be compensated at

counsel's present hourly rate rather than at an historical

rate. By charging the time in such a manner, the Court

will compensate counsel for the delay in payment during

the pendency of this litigation. See Alabama Power Co. v.

Gorsuch, 672 F.2d 1, 6 n.29 (D.C. Cir. 1982) (base amount

increased by 25%); Zipes v. Trans World Airlines, 846 F.2d

434, 443 (7th Cir. 1988) (Title VII) (1.44 multiplier for

delay).

Accordingly, Plaintiffs request that Mr. Pearson's and

Mr. Bland’s fees be increased a total of $48,081.50 to

compensate their time at their present rates ($125/hr. and

$80/hr. respectively). Plaintiffs seek no ‘delay enhance-

ment’ for any other attorney or legal assistant fees

charged to this matter.

3. Preclusion from Other Employment

The attached affidavit of Plaintiffs’ counsel estab-

lishes that most of the hours spent on this matter would

have been spent representing other clients who would

pay their hourly rates on a monthly basis. Given the

substantial devotion of time to this matter, Plaintiffs’

counsel were precluded from other employment by fee-

paying clients. This factor, too, weighs in favor of

enhancement.

4. Conclusion for Enhancement

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiffs submit that their

attorneys fees should be enhanced 100%. All of the crite-

ria collectively set forth in Johnson, Hensley and Delaware

Valley Il have been met and weigh in favor of enhance-

ment. Moreover, such enhancement is warranted by the

ever-increasing reluctance of competent and experienced

counsel to represent private attorneys general in environ-

mental cases. Without this incentive, it is inevitable that

statutes such as the CWA and RCRA will provide (citi-

zens) rights without remedies. Plaintiffs’ attorneys will

not take cases such as this one unless they can expect to

receive more than their hourly rate for time expended.

C. Expert Witness Fee

Plaintiffs’ expert witness, Dr. Frank Reed, billed

Plaintiffs for 140.5 hours at $50.00/hr. on this matter since

24 October 1985 for a total of $7,025.00. Dr. Reed also

charged Plaintiffs $220.00 for mileage and $50.00 for

meals. Thus, Plaintiffs have incurred a total of $7,295.00

in expert witness fees and expenses. (See Exhibit 2

attached to Affidavit of Plaintiffs’ counsel for Dr. Reed's

invoices). Plaintiffs submit that Dr. Reed’s expert witness

fees and expenses of $7,295.00 are reasonable and, there-

fore, reimbursable.

D. Expenses

In addition to attorneys and expert witness fees,

Plaintiffs request that they be awarded reasonable

expenses, not otherwise recoverable in a bill of costs,‘

incurred in this action. Plaintiffs’ counsel has attached an

affidavit setting forth that these expenses were necessary

and reasonably incurred and has attached copies of appli-

cable bills and receipts, totalling $3,634.66. (Exhibit 3).

Accordingly, Plaintiffs request that this amount also be

awarded.

An award of costs in this case is not limited to those

normally allowed pursuant to 28 USC. § 1920 or

F.R.Civ.P. 54. While there are few environmental cases on

this point, case law developed under other fee-shifting

statutes instructs that all reasonable out-of-pocket expen-

ditures are to be awarded. Shorter v. Valley Bank and Trust

Co., 678 F.Supp. 714, 726 (N.D. Ill. 1988) (FLSA); Reichman

v. Bonsignore & Mazzotta, 818 F.2d 278 (2d Cir. 1987)

(citing Laffey v. Northwest Airlines, Inc., 747 F.2d 4, 30

(D.C. Cir. 1984)); Herold v. Hajoca Corp., 864 F.2d 317, 323

(4th Cir. 1988) (ADEA); Kossman v. Calumet County, 849

* Plaintiffs will submit a Bill of Costs upon entry of judg-

ment.

F.2d 1027, 1030 (7th Cir. 1988) (ADEA); Hidle v. Geneva

County Board of Education, 681 FSupp. 752, 758 (D.C. Ala.

1988); Laffey, 746 F.2d at 30; Thompson v. Sawyer, 586

F.Supp. 635, 643 (D.D.C. 1984) (Title VII); Planells v. How-

ard University, __ FSupp. __, 34 FEP 66, 71 (D.C.D.C.

1984) (Title VII); Monroe v. United Air Lines, Inc., 565

F.Supp. 274, 289 (N.D. Ill. 1983) (ADEA).

Courts addressing claims under environmental pro-

tection statutes have stated that the general policies

underlying awards of fees and expenses in civil rights

cases apply to similar fee requests under environmental

statutes. See, e.g., Pennsylvania v. Delaware Valley Citizens’

Council for Clean Air, 106 S.Ct. 3088, 24 E.R.C. 1577 (1986)

(“Delaware Valley I); SPRIG [sic] of New Jersey v. AT&T,

842 F.2d 1436, 1439 n. 1 (3rd Cir. 1988); Save Our Sound

Fisheries Association v. Callaway, 429 FSupp. 1136 (D.R.1.

1977).

Courts resolving fee issues under the Clean Air Act

42 USC. § 7607(f), a fee shifting statute substantially

similar to the fee shifting provisions in RCRA and the

CWA, SPIRG of New Jersey, 842 F.2d at 1439 n. 1, have

awarded costs similar to those requested by Plaintiffs

here. Sierra Club v. EPA, 769 F.2d 796, 812 (D.C. Cir. 1985)

(awarding telephone, photocopying, postage costs); Ala-

bama Power Co. v. Gorsuch, 672 F.2d 1, 6-8 (D.C. Cir. 1982)

(travel, postage, copies of legislative history and tran-

script expenses awarded). All expenses requested by

Plaintiffs are therefore reimbursable.

Ill. CONCLUSION

Plaintiffs respectfully request the Court to award

attorneys fees in the amount of $198,027.50 and enhance

said fees 100%, to award $7,295.00 for expert witness fees

and $3,634.66 for expenses, and to permit Plaintiffs to

supplement their application consistent with future pro-

ceedings to be held in this case for any fees later incurred.

Burlington, Vermont. 31 October 1989.

DOWNS RACHLIN & MARTIN

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

By: /s/ Richard N. Bland

Richard N. Bland

199 Main Street

P.O. Box 190

Burlington, Vt 05401-0190

(802) 863-2375

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE

DISTRICT OF VERMONT

ERNEST DAGUE, SR. BETTY L. _)

DAGUE, ADMINISTRATRIX OF _ )

THE ESTATE OF ERNEST J. )

DAGUE, II BETTY DAGUE and )

ROSE A. BESSETTE )

. ) Civil Action No.

)

85-269

CITY OF BURLINGTON

AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’

APPLICATION FOR AWARD OF FEES AND COSTS

STATE OF VERMONT )

CHITTENDEN COUNTY, ) SS.

Richard N. Bland, being duly sworn, deposes and states

as follows:

I am an associate in the law firm of Downs Rachlin &

Martin, attorneys for Plaintiffs in this action. This affi-

davit provides the specification and itemization neces-

sary for recovery of costs of litigation, including

reasonable attorney and expert witness fees, pursuant to

42 U.S.C. § 6972(e) and 33 U.S.C. § 1365(d).

Attached hereto as Exhibit 1 are the billing state-

ments by this law firm for legal services performed in this

action. These billings are accurate and true representa-

tions of work actually performed, compiled from time

slips prepared by the attorney or legal assistant perform-

ing the work described. Time slips are prepared by each

attorney and legal assistant on a daily basis and reflect

actual time spent on the matter, as well as a description of

the work performed. As shown in Exhibit 1, the total

amount of Plaintiffs’ attorneys fees incurred from 3 April

1985 through 30 October 1989 is $198,027.50.

Attached hereto as Exhibit 2 are copies of invoices

from Dr. Frank Reed, in connection with his services as

an expert witness in this matter. As can be seen, Dr. Reed

billed Plaintiffs for 140.5 hours at $50.00 per hour on this

matter since 24 October 1985 for a total of $7,025.00. Dr.

Reed also charged Plaintiffs $220.00 for mileage and

$50.00 for meals. Thus, Plaintiffs have incurred a total of

$7,295.00 in expert witness fees and expenses.

Attached hereto as Exhibit 3 are copies of the expense

receipts expended by this law firm for expenses in this

action, exclusive of any amount to be included in Plain-

tiffs’ Bill of Costs. These receipts are accurate and true

representations of expenses actually incurred and total

$3,634.66. Certain other expenses were also necessarily

incurred for which no receipts are available: (1) telephone

$524.30; (2) postage $196.16; (3) mileage $906.36; (4) com-

puter legal research $518.47.' These expenses total

$2,145.29. Thus, total expenses, not otherwise recoverable

in a bill of costs, are $3,634.66.

William W. Pearson served as lead counsel for Plain-

tiffs in this matter. He was first admitted to the Indiana

' The practice of Downs Rachlin & Martin is to pass neces-

sarily incurred litigation expenses on to fee-paying clients and

not to increase hourly rates to absorb such expenses.

Bar and the U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indi-

ana, in 1971; the Vermont Bar in 1975; the U.S. District

Court, District of Vermont, in 1977; and the U.S. Court of

Appeals, Second Circuit, in 1986. He received his under-

graduate degree from University of Chicago in 1968. He

then attended Georgetown University Law Center where

he received his J.D. in 1971. He is presently a member of

the Vermont and American Bar Associations.

Mr. Pearson is an experienced trial attorney in the

field of environmental law. His experience with environ-

mental legal problems includes hazardous waste manage-

ment, toxic torts, NPDES permits, landfills, hazardous

waste risk management and commercial lending, envi-

ronmental audits, wastewater treatment facilities, Super-

fund, RCRA, Act 250, underground storage tanks, and

insurance coverage for environmental claims.

I assisted Mr. Pearson in this matter. I was first

admitted to the Vermont Bar in 1985; the U.S. District

Court, District of Vermont, in 1986; and the Supreme

Court of the United States in 1989. I received my under-

graduate degree from University of Vermont in 1982. |

then attended Washington University School of Law

where I received my J.D. in 1985. I am presently a mem-

ber of the Chittenden County, Vermont and American Bar

Associations.

I am a trial attorney whose practice is primarily in

the field of environmental law. | have experience in

resolving environmental legal problems involving haz-

ardous waste management, including the generation,

transportation, storage and disposal of hazardous waste,

landfills, RCRA, CWA, Superfund, asbestos, underground

storage tanks, hazardous waste risk management and

commercial lending, and insurance coverage for environ-

mental claims.

Based upon personal knowledge of hourly rates

charged by other attorneys in the Burlington area with

similar experience, reputation and skill, | know that rates

from $100 - $150 per hour are routinely charged. As

shown in Exhibit 1, there are varying levels of rates

charged by the law firm of Downs Rachlin & Martin.

Work performed by partners is billed at $90 — $150 per

hour. Work performed by associates is billed at $60 — $85

per hour, depending on the level of experience. The fol-

lowing is a list of each attorney and legal assistant who

worked on this case, the amount of time they spent on

this case, and their hourly rates:

William W. Pearson

01-01-89 - 12-31-89 142.50 HOURS AT 125.00 /HR

= 17,812.50

07-01-87 - 12-31-88 143.10 HOURS AT 115.00 /HR

= 16,456.50

07-01-86 - 06-30-87 86.80 HOURS AT 100.00 /HR

= 8,680.00

07-01-84 - 06-30-86 442.40 HOURS AT 85.00 /HR

= 37,604.00

Richard N. Bland

01-01-89 - 12-31-89 294.20 HOURS AT 80.00 /HR

= 23,536.00

07-01-87 - 12-31-88 215.60 HOURS AT 70.00 /HR

= 15,092.00

07-01-86 - 06-30-87 98.40 HOURS AT 65.00 /HR

= 6,396.00

22 23

01-01-85 - 06-30-86 661.50 HOURS AT 45.00 /HR Martha L. Judy

= 29,767.50 01-01-88 - 12-31-88 17.20 HOURS AT 30.00 /HR

= 516.00

Michael J. Case :

01-01-89 - 12-31-89 77.60 HOURS AT 50.00 /HR Anthony J. Gallucci

= 3,880.00 01-01-89 - 12-31-89 2.10 HOURS AT 45.00 /HR

07-01-89 - 12-31-88 97.50 HOURS AT 45.00 /HR . 94.50

= 4,387.50 G. Larry Harvey

07-01-85 - 06-30-87 593.20 HOURS AT 40.00 /HR 07-01-84 - 06-30-85 26.30 HOURS AT 35.00 /HR

= 23,728.00 = 920.50

07-01-84 - 06-30-85 67.50 HOURS AT 35.00 /HR

= 2,362.50 Wynne W. Browne

07-01-84 - 06-30-86 0.50 HOURS AT 30.00 /HR

Paul H. Ode, Jr. = 15.00

07-01-84 - 06-30-85 0.50 HOURS AT 55.00 /HR aie

a 27.50 Joyce D. Servidio

01-01-85 - 06-30-86 6.70 HOURS AT 35.00 /HR

Robert B. Luce = 234.50

07-01-85 - 06-30-86 10.50 HOURS AT 60.00 /HR ;

2 630.00 David Lowy

01-01-86 - 12-31-87 11.00 HOURS AT 30.00 /HR

Gregory S. Clayton e 330.00

01-01-89 - 12-31-89 2.40 HOURS AT 90.00 /HR

= 216.00 P

07-01-85 - 06-30-86 0.50 HOURS AT 60.00 /HR .

= 30.00 In order to substantiate that the requested hourly

Heather Briggs rates are reasonable, attached are Exhibits 4, 5 and 6

01-01-89 - 12-31-89 8.10 HOURS AT 120.00 /HR which are affidavits from attorneys in the Burlington area

= 972.00 which set forth their respective billing rates and further

John H. Tarlow indicate the hourly rates for counsel with similar experi-

07-01-85 - 06-30-86 13.80 HOURS AT 45.00 /HR ence, reputation and skill.

= 621.00

Anita R. Tuttle

01-01-89 - 12-31-89 26.40 HOURS AT 75.00 /HR ?.

= Wee My environmental law practice and that of the envi-

Robert A. Miller | ronmental law group at Downs Rachlin & Martin since |

01-01-89 - 12-31-89 9.40 HOURS AT 70.00 /HR have joined the firm has been limited to representing fee-

= 658.00 ‘ : :

01-01-88 - 12-31-88 21.60 HOURS AT 50.00 /HR paying clients, because of the risk associated with the

= 1,080.00 representation of private attorneys general and plaintifts

EEE EEO EEE iia

on a contingency fee basis. Thus, most of the hours spent

on this matter would have been spent representing other

clients who would pay our hourly rates on a monthly

basis.

Nevertheless, all work associated with Defendant's

statutory liability was taken on a contingent basis: had

Plaintif‘s not prevailed on their statutory claims, counsel

for Plaintiffs would not be compensated at all for their

services on these claims. In fact, to date, this firm has not

received any payment for its services.

An important factor in this firm’s decision to pursue

Plaintiffs’ statutory claims was the opportunity to have

any eventual award of attorneys fees enhanced by the

Court beyond the lodestar amount. This incentive, in my

professional opinion, is necessary to attract competent

counsel to represent private attorneys general in public

interest litigation. Accordingly, I am of the opinion that

Plaintiffs would have faced extreme difficulties in finding

other local counsel of similar experience to pursue their

claims under RCRA and the CWA on an hourly rate to be

paid only on the contingency of success.

/s/ Richard N. Bland

Richard N. Bland

Sworn to and subscribed before me this 31 day of

October, 1989.

/s/ Lizabeth Palmer

Notary Public

Commission Expires: 2/91

B3.40.1028

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE

DISTRICT OF VERMONT

ERNEST DAGUE, SR. BETTY L. )

DAGUE, ADMINISTRATRIX OF _ )

THE ESTATE OF ERNEST J. )

DAGUE, II BETTY DAGUE and __)

ROSE A. BESSETTE )

. ) Civil Action No.

) 85-269

CITY OF BURLINGTON )

AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’

APPLICATION FOR AWARD OF FEES AND COSTS

STATE OF ARIZONA )

COUNTY OF PIMA ss AFFIDAVIT

William W. Pearson, being duly sworn, deposes and

states as follows:

1. From the beginning of this action until May 30,

1989, I was a partner in the law firm of Downs, Rachlin &

Martin, attorneys for plaintiffs in this action. Since June 1,

1989, I have been with the firm of Molloy, Jones & Dona-

hue in Tucson, Arizona. This affidavit provides additional

support for plaintiffs’ application for the award of fees

and costs pursuant to this Court’s Order of October 16,

1989, and 42 U.S.C. § 6972(e) and 33 U.S.C. § 1365(d).

2. My relevant background is as follows:

A. B.A. degree from University of Chicago in

1968

B. J.D. degree from Georgetown University

Law Center in 1971

C. Admitted to Indiana Bar and U.S. District

Court, Southern District of Indiana in 1971

D. Admitted to Vermont Bar in 1975 and the

U.S. District Court, District of Vermont in

1977

E. Admitted to U.S. Court of Appeals, 2nd

Circuit in 1986

F. Admitted to Arizona Bar and U.S. District

Court, District of Arizona in 1989

3. Iam an experienced trial attorney in the field of

environmental law. I have handled a variety of environ-

mental legal problems including hazardous and solid

waste management, toxic torts, NPDES permits, landfills,

lender liability for environmental hazards, environmental

audits, wastewater treatment facilities, Superfund, RCRA,

Act 250, underground storage tanks, and insurance cover-

age for environmental claims.

4. In practicing environmental law in Vermont, it is

my experience that a very high percentage of fee paying

clients retain big city, national law firms to do their high

stakes, sophisticated environmental work. For example,

Downs, Rachlin & Martin is one of only a couple Vermont

law firms who are lead counsel for a significant party in

Vermont's Superfund sites. The other significant parties

are represented by law firms from such places as Boston,

New York City, and Washington, D.C. These outside Ver-

mont firms are hired because the laws are complex, the

technical issues sophisticated and the financial stakes are

high. Commensurate with their experience and expertise,

these out-of-state firms charge hourly fees substantially

higher than their Vermont counterparts.

5. Presently | am responsible for the environmental

practice in Molloy, Jones & Donahue, which is one of the

premier law firms in Tucson, Arizona, a city whose popu-

lation is greater than all of Vermont. | am continuing my

environmental law practice in the areas outlined above.

My present hourly rate is $170.00 per hour.

6. I have reviewed Exhibit 1 attached to plaintiffs’

Application for Award of Fees and Costs. To the best of

my knowledge, Exhibit 1 is a fair and accurate itemiza-

tion of the legal services and costs related to this action

for the time period stated therein.

7. Attached to this Affidavit is a supplementary

account of legal services provided by me in this action

from April 1985 until October 1985. During this time and

as part of my routine billing practice at Downs, Rachlin &

Martin for this type of case, | kept contemporaneous

records of the date and time spent working on this case.

While I did not make contemporaneous description

entries for the work done, | have reviewed the time and

descriptive entries of others and, based upon my best

recollection, can state what acts | performed during this

time. As the Court can see in comparing my account with

the descriptive entries of others in my office working

with me on the case, there is a consistent, detailed

description of the services provided to the plaintiffs. To

the best of my knowledge, information and belief, and

herein made under oath, this attached account is a fair

statement of the legal services provided by me for the

time periods stated therein.

8. Concerning the plaintiffs’ application for an

enhancement of the fees as stated, it is my considered

judgment that the plaintiffs could have found no other

attorneys to represent them other than Attorney Bland

and myself based on the following:

A. The plaintiffs had no funds with which to

pay for legal services on an up-front basis;

At the time this suit was brought Attorney

Bland and I were among a handful of Ver-

mont lawyers sufficiently sophisticated in

this specialized area to handle plaintiffs’

claims;

Defendant is a political subdivision which

does not function or have priorities like a

private sector party thereby increasing the

uncertainty of strategy and outcome;

The enormous up-front expense in this case

of services and costs incurred would be

prohibitive to all but larger law firms.

In summary, in my professional judgment, the

total lodestar and enhancement requested are reasonable

and appropriate given all the factors listed in the Appli-

cation itself and in this affidavit.

/s/ William W. Pearson

William W. Pearson

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me this 31

day of October, 1989, by William W. Pearson.

My Commission Expires: 3/1/92

/s/ Leslie J. Morse

Notary Public

Sample Entry -

Date: Atty: Hours: Amount:

Description of Services:

04/03/85 WWP 0.50 221.00

04/04/85 WWP 0.60

04/05/85 WWP 1.50

Phone conferences with clients; conferences

with clients at their home; review applicable

laws and regulations; outline Retainer Agree-

ment

04/09/85 WWwP 0.60

04/10/85 WwWP 3.00

04/11/85 WWP 1.50

04/12/85 WwwpP 1.50

561.00

Phone conferences with clients; conferences

with clients at their home; site examination of

landfill and surrounding properties; phone con-

ferences with City Attorney’s Office; outline

document gathering plan; further review of

Retainer Agreement

04/15/85 WwWP 3.50

04/16/85 wwpP 2.00

04/17/85 WwwpP 2.50

04/18/85 WwWP 2.60

04/19/85 WWP 2.00

04/23/85 WwWwWwP 1.00

04/29/85 WwWP 0.50

1,198.50

Daily inspections of site to review and record

City excavation activity; conferences about same

with clients, City officials and State personnel;

search for methane gas expert by contacting

UVM and Vermont Gas; analyze methane gas

data; review Federal and State regulations on

methane gas control and standards

05/02/85 WwWP 3.40 544.00

05/03/85 WWP 3.00

Site visits to review City excavation of landfill

looking for unspecified suspected hazardous

waste deposit; review same with clients; exam-

ine site photos

05/22/85 WwwpP 0.50 357.00

06/17/85 WwwpP 1.00

07/02/85 WWP 0.30

07/12/85 WwWP 0.90

07/17/85 WwWP 1.50

Phone conferences with clients; site visits with

clients; analyze gas data; analyze City damage

to client’s property from excavation as City

replacement soil possibly contained road salts,

methane; conferences with City Attorney’s

office about same; inspect site with City offi-

cials; review documents obtained from City

08/05/85 WWP 0.60 467.50

08/13/85 WwWP 1.00

08/20/85 WwWP 1.00

08/21/85 WwWP 0.50

08/25/85 WwWP 0.60

08/30/85 wwPpP 1.80

Phone conferences with clients; phone confer-

ences with State officials; review City/State

assurances of discontinuance; read statutes and

regulations regulating landfill operation

09/03/85 WWP 2.00 2,864.50

09/11/85 WwWP 1.50

09/12/85 WwWwP 1.50

09/13/85 WWP 1.20

09/17/85 WWP 1.50

09/19/85 WwWP 0.50

09/23/85 WWP 1.00

09/24/85 WWP 4.00

09/25/85 WWP 6.00

09/26/85 WwWP 1.00

09/27/85 WWP 4.50

09/30/85 WwWP 9.00

In-depth review of statutes and regulations

focusing on infraction of Federal and State

enforcement programs; review documentation

indicating disposal of hazardous waste in land-

fill; conferences with clients on methane gas

problems; phone conferences with State officials

on enforcement efforts; outline possible claims

against City; analyze City’s possible defenses;

review Law Review articles and EPA policy

statements on landfill regulations; phone confer-

ences with environmental lawyers to obtain

“second opinions” on merits of lawsuit; review

State’s lack of enforcement pattern and whether

this provided City a defense; analyze whether

State should be made co-defendant; plan further

document investigation and interviews with for-

mer City employees; organize photograph his-

torical search; organize map search

10/06/85 WwWP 4.00 2,040.00

10/07/85 WwWwP 4.00

10/08/85 WwWP 10.00

10/09/85 WwWwpP 1.00

10/10/85 WwWP 3.00

10/11/85 WwWP 2.00

Outline, draft, edit revise Complaint, Motion for

Preliminary Injunction, Memorandum in Sup-

port of Motion; organize supporting documenta-

tion; conferences with clients; organize expert

search through UVM, Vermont Law School and

Environmental Defense Fund; further analysis

of State inaction and impact on this lawsuit;

read numerous cases on CERCLA, RCRA and

CWA; analyze merits of suing generators as well

as City; review technical data gathered at land-

fill by City; prepare for preliminary injunction

hearing by reviewing pleadings, documents,

conferences with witnesses, listing exhibits, out-

lining witness, testimony, reviewing statutory

standards, etc.

TOTAL 97.10 $8,253.50

DOWNS RACHLIN & MARTIN, PROF. CORP

9 PROSPECT STREET

POST OFFICE BOX 99

ST. JOHNSBURY, VT 05819-0099

October 30, 1989

MRS. ERNEST DAGUE

BURLINGTON, VT 05401

FILE NUMBER: 2369001

INVOICE NUMBER: 1

FOR THE PERIOD THROUGH October 30, 1989

DAGUE V. CITY OF BURLINGTON

Sample Entry -

Date: Atty: Hours: Amount:

Description of Services:

04-05-85 MJC 1.30 45.50

INTERVIEW CLIENTS REGARDING CLAIMS

AGAINST CITY OF BURLINGTON.

04-09-85 MJC 4.20 147.00

REVIEW FILE; INTERVIEW ERNIE DAGUE, JR.

REGARDING DAMAGES AND CLAIMS

AGAINST CITY; INTERVIEW STEVE GOOD-

KIND REGARDING PAST AND FUTURE

OPERATION OF LANDFILL; COPY GOOD-

KIND FILE; FACT INVESTIGATION AT

STREET DEPARTMENT REGARDING PLANS

TO EXCAVATE FOR SEWER PIPE; STATUS

REPORT TO ATTORNEY PEARSON REGARD-

ING INTERVIEWS AND FACT INVESTIGA-

TION; ORGANIZE FILE.

04-10-85 MJC 2.70 94.50

SITE INSPECTION OF LANDFILL; INTERVIEW

WITH JIM OGDEN AND BRIAN OSBOURNE

OF THE BURLINGTON STREET DEPART-

MENT; CONFERENCE WITH CLIENTS

REGARDING LITIGATION AGAINST CITY;

MEMORANDUM TO ATTORNEY PEARSON

REGARDING STATE HAZARDOUS MATE-

RIALS AND SOLID WASTE REGULATIONS;

DRAFT MEDICAL RELEASES FOR CLIENTS

RESEARCH TO GET LITERATURE ON OTHER

TOXIC WASTE LAWSUITS.

04-11-85 MJC 4.40 154.00

REVIEW LANDFILL NEWS ARTICLES; PHO-

TOGRAPH DAGUE PROPERTY BEFORE EXCA-

VATION; CONFERENCE WITH CLIENTS

REGARDING RETAINER AGREEMENTS.

04-12-85 MJC 2.50 87.50

CONFERENCE WITH CLIENTS REGARDING

REVISED RETAINER AGREEMENTS; PICK UP

CITY ATTORNEY’S LETTER REGARDING

INDEMNIFICATION FOR EXCAVATION OF

DAGUE PROPERTY.

04-15-85 PHO 0.50 27.50

ANALYZE MUNICIPAL LIABILITY ISSUES

AND REVIEW CASELAW REGARDING SAME;

ANALYZE CONVEYANCING ISSUES.

04-15-85 MJC 3.00 105.00

PROPERTY INSPECTION OF CITY EXCAVA-

TION FOR SEWER PIPE; DRAFT MEMORAN-

DUM REGARDING PRINCIPALS IN CASE.

04-16-85 MJC 7.50 262.50

PROPERTY INSPECTION DURING INITIAL

SEARCH FOR SEWER PIPE; PHOTOGRAPH

SAME; CONFERENCE WITH CLIENTS AND

STREET DEPARTMENT PERSONNEL

REGARDING METHANE PROBLEM; REPORT

TO ATTORNEY PEARSON REGARDING

SAME.

04-17-85 MJC 7.50 262.50

PROPERTY INSPECTION DURING RENEWED

EXCAVATION FOR SEWER PIPE; PHOTO-

GRAPH SAME; CONFERENCE WITH STREET

DEPARTMENT OFFICIALS AND CLIENTS

REGARDING SAME

04-18-85 MJC 5.50 192.50

CONTINUED PROPERTY INSPECTION DUR-

ING EXCAVATION OF CLIENTS’ LAND;

ADDITIONAL PHOTOGRAPHING; CONFER-

ENCE WITH STREET DEPARTMENT PERSON-

NEL AND CLIENTS REGARDING SAME.

04-19-85 MJC 5.80 203.00

FURTHER PROPERTY INSPECTION AND

PHOTOGRAPH SAME; CONFERENCE WITH

ATTORNEY PEARSON REGARDING METH-

ANE LEVELS ON DAGUE PROPERTY;

DEVELOP TEST FORM FOR CLIENT USE.

04-22-85 MJC 5.30 185.50

DEVELOP FORMS FOR GAS WELL MONITOR-

ING; FILL IN ALL TEST DATA; SITE INSPEC-

TION OF CITY WORK ON SEWER

EXCAVATION; CONFERENCE WITH JON-

ATHAN LEOPOLD REGARDING ACTION BY

BURLINGTON FINANCE BOARD; SEARCH

TITLE TO DAGUE PROPERTY; CONFERENCE

WITH BURLINGTON ASSESSOR’S OFFICE

REGARDING NORTH BOUNDARY LINE OF

DAGUE PROPERTY; MEMORANDUM ON

DAGUE PROPERTY LINES.

04-23-85 MJC 0.40 14.00

REVIEW LATEST METHANE TEST RESULTS

AND ENTER INTO COMPUTER LISTING.

04-24-85 MJC 0.30 10.50

REVIEW PHOTOGRAPHS OF SEWER EXCAVA-

TION

04-24-85 JDS 0.50 17.50

SET UP COMPUTER TO LOG GAS WELL

READINGS.

04-29-85 MJC 1.00 35.00

FACT INVESTIGATION AT CITY HALL

REGARDING FINANCE BOARD ACTION

05-02-85 MJC 2.00 70.00

SITE INSPECTION OF LANDFILL DURING

EXCAVATION FOR HAZARDOUS WASTES;

CONFERENCE WITH CLIENTS AND POLICE

REGARDING SEARCH; PLAN FURTHER

INVESTIGATION; TELEPHONE CONFERENCE

WITH LEGAL ASSISTANT LARRY HARVEY

REGARDING SEARCH FOR BARRELS OF

HAZARDOUS WASTE.

05-02-85 GLH 4.00 140 Lo

INVESTIGATION INTO CIRCUMSTANCES

SURROUNDING EXCAVATION OF CITY

LANDFILL NEAR MR. DAGUE’S PROPERTY.

05-02-85 JDS 2.00 70.00

COMPLETE INPUT OF GAS WELL READINGS;

DRAFT PRINTOUT -OF FIGURES AND

GRAPHS OF BASEMENT, CHIMNEY AND

WELL #5 READINGS.

05-03-85 MJC 1.80 63.00

CONFERENCE WITH ATTORNEY PEARSON

AND CLIENTS REGARDING CLAIMS

AGAINST CITY AND CITY’S LIABILITY FOR

DAMAGES TO DAGUE PROPERTY; PHOTO- -

GRAPH RECENT EXCAVATION AND RESTO-

RATION OF LAWN.

05-03-85 GLH 1.00 35.00

MEMORANDUM TO FILE REGARDING EXCA-

VATION AT CITY’S LANDFIleL

05-06-85 MJC 1.60 56.00

REVIEW NOTES; DRAFT MEMORANDUM

REGARDING SITE INSPECTION DURING

EXCAVATION FOR SEWER PIPE; ADD NEW

GAS WELL READINGS TO COMPUTER LIST.

05-07-85 MJC 0.80 28.00

RESEARCH NEWS ARTICLES REGARDING

LANDFILL INVESTIGATION; FILE SAME;

DRAFT LETTER TO CITY ATTORNEY

GRETCHEN BAILEY REGARDING INFORMAL

DISCOVERY.

05-07-85 JDS 0.20 7.00

ANALYZE FUTURE USES OF DATABASE

ESTABLISHED TO EVALUATE GAS READ-

INGS.

05-09-85 MJC 0.50 17.50

PLAN FOR FURTHER INVESTIGATION AND

DISCOVERY; REVISE LETTER TO CITY ATTOR-

NEY.

05-13-85 MJC 0.30 10.50

RECORD NEWS BROADCAST REGARDING

WITNESS TO HAZARDOUS WASTE DUMPING

AT LANDFILL; CONFERENCE WITH ATTOR-

NEY PEARSON REGARDING SAME AND

FURTHER INVESTIGATION.

05-14-85 MJC 0.20 7.00

REVIEW TRANSCRIPT OF NEWS STORY ON

HAZARDOUS WASTE AND LANDFILL.

05-15-85 MJC 2.00 70.00

REVIEW AND ANALYZE HAZARDOUS

WASTE ISSUES; TELEPHONE CONFERENCE

WITH ERNIE DAGUE, JR. REGARDING STA-

TUS OF GAS WELL MONITORING AND DIS-

COVERY FROM CITY; MEMORANDUM TO

ATTORNEY PEARSON REGARDING SAME;

COPY DEEDS; TELEPHONE CONFERENCE

WITH ERNIE DAGUE, JR. REGARDING OWN-

ERSHIP AND LOCATION OF PROPERTY;

MEMORANDUM TO ATTORNEY PEARSON

REGARDING SAME.

05-22-85 WwWwP 0.50 42.50

STATUS CONFERENCE WITH CLIENTS.

05-24-85 MJC 1.00 35.00

ENTER DATA FROM GAS WELL TEST

RESULTS INTO COMPUTER FORM; REVIEW

GOODKIND LETTER TO CLIENT REGARDING

TEST RESULTS FROM DEEP WELL.

05-29-85 MJC 0.80 28.00

REVIEW GRAPHS OF GAS WELL TEST

RESULT AMD [sic] ROUTE TO ATTORNEY

PEARSON; DRAFT LETTER TO CLIENTS

REGARDING STATUS OF CASE.

05-29-85 JDS 1.50 52.50

ADD BASEMENT, CHIMNEY AND WELL

READINGS TAKEN BETWEEN 4-22-85 AND

5-21-85 TO EXISTING DATABASE; PRINTOUT

REVISED LIST OF READINGS; PRINTOUT

GRAPHS OF GAS WELL READING TRENDS

FOR BASEMENT, CHIMNEY AND WELL 45.

06-03-85 MJC 0.30 10.50

REVISE STATUS REPORT TO CLIENTS.

06-10-85 MJC 2.70 94.50

TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH ERNIE

DAGUE, JR. AND ATTORNEY GRETCHEN

BAILEY REGARDING STATUS OF CITY’S

REPLACEMENT OF CLIENTS’ LAWN; TELE-

PHONE CONFERENCE WITH LANDSCAPING

FIRMS REGARDING FEASIBILITY OF SOD-

DING AND USE; CONFERENCE WITH CLI-

ENTS REGARDING SAME.

06-11-85 MJC 0.50 17.50

ANALYZE POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS TO GRASS-

GROWING PROBLEM FOR CLIENTS.

06-13-85 MJC 0.60 21.00

TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH ATTOR-

NEY GRETCHEN BAILEY REGARDING CITY’S

DECISION ON CLIENTS’ LAWN; TELEPHONE

CONFERENCE WITH BETTY DAGUE.

06-14-85 MJC 1.00 35.00

TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH ATTOR-

NEY GRETCHEN BAILEY REGARDING CITY’S

DECISION ON CLIENTS’ LAWN; MEMORAN-

DUM TO ATTORNEY PEARSON REGARDING

SAME.

07-02-85 WWP 0.30 25.50

ANALYZE DAMAGES TO CLIENTS’ PROP-

ERTY.

07-02-85 MJC 1.20 48.00

TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH ERNIE

DAGUE, JR. REGARDING RESTORATION OF

LAWN, AND OTHER DEMANDS TO CITY;

MEMORANDUM REGARDING SAME TO

ATTORNEY PEARSON; TELEPHONE CONFER-

ENCE WITH ATTORNEY GRETCHEN BAILEY

TO SCHEDULE INSPECTION OF DAGUE

PREMISES.

07-09-85 MJC 1.00 40.00

TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH ATTOR-

NEY BAILEY REGARDING INSPECTION OF

DAMAGE TO DAGUE LAWN; CONFERENCE

WITH AND MEMORANDUM TO ATTORNEY

PEARSON REGARDING SAME; TELEPHONE

CONFERENCE WITH ERNIE DAGUE, SR.

REGARDING SAME.

07-17-85 MJC 1.20 48.00

INSPECTION OF DAGUE PROPERTY WITH

ATTORNEY PEARSON, ATTORNEY

GRETCHEN BAILEY, SID BAKER, CITY

ARBORIST, AND DAGUES; CONFERENCE

WITH CLIENTS REGARDING CLAIMS

AGAINST CITY AND POSSIBLE SETTLEMENT.

07-18-85 MJC 1.60 64.00

LETTER TO CLIENTS REGARDING GAS WELL

TEST RESULTS; PHOTOGRAPH PRESENT

STATE OF PROPERTY.

08-05-85 MJC 0.30 12.00

CONFERENCE WITH ATTORNEY PEARSON

REGARDING FURTHER INVESTIGATION -

AND STRATEGY.

08-07-85 MJC 1.00 40.00

TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH STEVE

GOODKIND REGARDING DOCUMENTS

AVAILABLE ON OPERATION AND MAINTE-

NANCE OF BURLINGTON LANDFILL; TELE-

PHONE CONFERENCE WITH ATTORNEY

BAILEY REGARDING RESPONSES TO INFOR-

MAL DISCOVERY REQUESTS; TELEPHONE

CONFERENCE WITH JIM OLSEN REGARDING

REPORT OF SOIL TESTING; TELEPHONE

CONFERENCE WITH VAEC REGARDING

DOCUMENTS ON BURLINGTON LANDFILL.

08-08-85 MJC 1.00 40.00

COLLECT NEWS ARTICLE ON LANDFILL;

TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH ERNIE

DAGUE, SR. REGARDING DUST FROM LAND-

FILL; TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH

STEVE GOODKIND REGARDING SAME; CON-

FERENCE WITH ATTORNEY PEARSON

REGARDING SAME AND DEVELOPMENT OF

COMPLAINT; TELEPHONE CONFERENCE

WITH VERMONT SOLID WASTE DEPART-

MENT REGARDING DOCUMENTS ON LAND-

FILL.

08-12-85 MJC 7.00 280.00

REVIEW AND REORGANIZE FILE; SEARCH

BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH

AND SAFETY FILES ON BURLINGTON LAND-

FILL; COPY IMPORTANT DOCUMENTS FROM

SAME; CONFERENCE WITH STEVE GOOD-

KIND REGARDING COMPLETENESS OF FILE;

VISIT LANDFILL SITE AND INSPECT

ASPHALT DEPOSITS; CONFERENCE WITH

CLIENTS REGARDING PAST AND PRESENT

DEALINGS WITH THE CITY.

08-13-85 MJC 3.50 140.00

RESEARCH STATE SOLID WASTE FILES ON

BURLINGTON LANDFILL; CONFERENCE

WITH JULIE HACKBARTH REGARDING HIS-

TORY AND FUTURE OPERATION OF BUR-

LINGTON LANDFILL; COPY DOCUMENTS

FROM STATE FILES; CONFERENCE WITH

ATTORNEY PEARSON REGARDING SAME.

08-14-85 MJC 0.50 20.00

ORGANIZE DOCUMENTS RECEIVED FROM

AEC AND CITY.

08-15-85 MJC 1.50 60.00

REVIEW DAGUE GAS WELL READINGS AND

TABULATE FOR COMPUTER PROGRAM;

REVIEW DOCUMENTS BETWEEN CITY AND

STATE REGARDING OPERATION OF LAND-

FILL; MEMORANDA TO ATTORNEY PEAR-

SON REGARDING FACT INVESTIGATION

AND HISTORY OF BURLINGTON LANDFILL.

08-20-85 MJC 0.70 28.00

REVIEW MEMORANDA TO ATTORNEY PEAR-

SON REGARDING LANDFILL AND PRO-

GRESS OF INVESTIGATION; PROCESSING

PHOTOS OF LAWN TAKEN ON 8@15@85.

08-21-85 MJC 0.50 20.00

CONFERENCE WITH ATTORNEY PEARSON

REGARDING PLAN FOR FURTHER INVESTI-

GATION.

08-26-85 MJC 7.50 300.00

REVIEW AEC FILES; COPY DOCUMENTS;

CONFERENCE WITH RUTH EINSTEIN

REGARDING HAZARDOUS WASTE NOTI-

FICATION FORMS FILED BY GENERATORS

AND POSSIBLE HAZARDOUS WASTE DUMP-

ING AT BURLINGTON LANDFILL.

08-27-85 MJC 3.50 140.00

ORGANIZE FILE; REVIEW DOCUMENTS;

CONFERENCE WITH ATTORNEY PEARSON

REGARDING NEWLY DISCOVERED EVI-

DENCE OF IMPROPER OPERATION OF BUR-

LINGTON LANDFILL; TELEPHONE

CONFERENCE WITH CLIENTS REGARDING

PROGRESS OF INVESTIGATION.

08-28-85 MJC 0.30 12.00

CONFERENCE WITH ATTORNEY PEARSON

REGARDING PREPARATION OF FACTUAL

SUMMARY AS BASIS FOR LEGAL ACTION.

08-29-85 RNB 4.10 184.50

CONFERENCE WITH ATTORNEY PEARSON

REGARDING LEGAL THEORIES TO PURSUE

AGAINST CITY AND-OR STATE; REVIEW

MEMORANDUM FROM RUTH EINSTEIN,

CHRONOLOGY OF LANDFILL VIOLATIONS,

AND ARTICLE ON LIABILITY FOR CLEANUP

OF HAZARDOUS WASTE DISPOSAL SITES;

LEGAL RESEARCH UNDER FEDERAL WATER

POLLUTION CONTROL ACT, RESOURCE

CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT, AND

GROUNDWATER PROTECTION UNDER FED-

ERAL AND VERMONT LAW.

08-29-85 MJC 1.50 60.00

CONFERENCE WITH ATTORNEY PEARSON

REGARDING FACTS FOR COMPREHENSIVE

COMPLAINT; REVIEW FILE FOR THAT PUR-

POSE; REVIEW GAS WELL GRAPHS.

8-29-85 JDS 2.50 87.50

PRINT-OUT AND REVIEW GAS READINGS IN

WELL NOS. 6 THROUGH 22.

08-30-85 RNB 6.20 279.00

LEGAL RESEARCH UNDER FEDERAL CLEAN

WATER ACT, RESOURCE CONSERVATION

AND RECOVERY ACT AND COMMON LAW

THEORIES FOR ENVIRONMENTAL HARM.

08-30-85 MJC 0.50 20.00

ANALYZE EPA INVOLVEMENT WITH BUR-

LINGTON LANDFILL OPERATION AND CER-

TIFICATION.

08-31-85 RNB 3.00 135.00

CONTINUE LEGAL RESEARCH UNDER FED-

ERAL ENVIRONMENTAL STATUTES AND

VERMONT LAW.

09-03-85 RNB 1.30 58.50

CONFERENCE WITH ATTORNEY PEARSON

TO ANALYZE LEGAL THEORIES AND FAC-

TUAL INVESTIGATION.

09-03-85 MJC 7.60 304.00

CONFERENCE WITH ATTORNEY PEARSON

REGARDING STRATEGY AND DIVISION OF

LABOR TO PURSUE CLAIM AGAINST CITY;

TELEPHONE CONFERENCES WITH JAMES

OGDEN, JONATHAN LEOPOLD, AND ATTOR-

NEY JOSEPH MCNEIL REGARDING APPRO-

PRIATION OF $10 MILLION BOND ISSUE;

LETTER TO JONATHAN LEOPOLD AND

ATTORNEY MCNEIL.

09-05-85 MJC 6.50 260.00

REVIEW AEC FILES ON BURLINGTON LAND-

FILL; DRAFT OUTLINE OF VIOLATIONS OF

VERMONT WASTE MANAGEMENT REGULA-

TIONS.

09-06-85 MJC 0.40 16.00

TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH ERNIE

DAGUE, JR. REGARDING LACK OF COVER

OVER GARBAGE AT BURLINGTON LAND-

FILL AND FUTURE PLANS FOR LEGAL

ACTION AGAINST CITY REGARDING LAND-

FILL.

09-08-85 MJC 1.80 72.00

PHOTOGRAPH BURLINGTON LANDFILL TO

SHOW STATUS OF COVERING OPERATION

AND PROXIMITY TO POND AND WILDLIFE;

INSPECTION OF LANDFILL.

09-10-85 RNB 3.60 162.00

THOROUGH REVIEW AND ANALYSIS OF

FACTS AND LEGAL RESEARCH COMPLETED

TO DATE.

09-10-85 MJC 5.20 208.00

CONFERENCE WITH ATTORNEY PEARSON

REGARDING FURTHER WORK TO BE DONE;

REVIEW VAEC FILE ON BURLINGTON LAND-

FILL AND OUTLINE SAME.

09-11-85 WwWP 1.50 127.50

REVIEW LAW REVIEW ARTICLES AND CASES

ON RCRA.

09-11-85 — RNB 5.40 243.00

LEGAL RESEARCH ON CASELAW UNDER

FEDERAL CLEAN WATER ACT AND

RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY

ACT, AND SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY CASES;

REVIEW BURLINGTON’S APPLICATION FOR

CERTIFICATION OF LANDFILL; REVIEW

REPORT ON RESOURCE RECOVERY FACIL-

ITY.

09-11-85 MJC 7.20 288.00

REVIEW FILE; CORRELATE FACTUAL INVES-

TIGATION WITH LEGAL RESEARCH IN PREP-

ARATION FOR DRAFTING COMPLAINT;

CONFERENCE WITH STEVEN GOODKIND;

REVIEW STREET DEPARTMENT FILES AND

COPY DOCUMENTS; CONFERENCE WITH

CITY CLERK AND COPY DOCUMENTS; CON-

FERENCE WITH JIM OGDEN; REVIEW

AMENDMENTS.

09-12-85 RNB 4.50 202.50

BEGIN DRAFTING MEMORANDUM OUTLIN-

ING LEGAL THEORIES TO PURSUE; REVIEW

AND ANALYZE ASSURANCES OF DISCONTI-

NUANCE AND HEALTH DEPARTMENT'S

FILE REGARDING LANDFILL.

09-12-85 MJC 6.20 248.00

REVIEW FILE; CONFERENCE WITH ATTOR-

NEY PEARSON REGARDING LEACHATE

TEST RESULTS NEEDED IN PREPARATION

FOR DRAFTING COMPLAINT; REVIEW BUR-

LINGTON HEALTH AND SAFETY FILE AND

COPY SAME; REVIEW ASSURANCES OF DIS-

CONTINU ANCE AND OUTLINE VIOLATIONS

BY CITY OF BURLINGTON.

09-13-85 RNB 5.50 247.50

DRAFT MEMORANDUM ON PRIMARY JURIS-

DICTION AND SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY;

CONTINUE REVIEW OF FACT DOCUMENTS.

09-13-85 MJC 0.50 20.00

CONFERENCE WITH ATTORNEY PEARSON

REGARDING ORGANIZATION OF FILES.

09-16-85 MJC 4.00 160.00

ORGANIZE FILE; COPY REPORTS RECEIVED

FROM VAEC AND RETURN SAME; ORGA-

NIZE VAEC MATERIALS.

09-17-85 RNB .50 22.50

CONFERENCE WITH ATTORNEY PEARSON

REGARDING FACT INVESTIGATION AND

LEGAL THEORIES.

09-17-85 MJC 6.00 240.00

REVIEW TOXIC WASTE FILE FROM AEC AND

DRAFT LIST OF CHEMICALS DUMPED IN

BURLINGTON LANDFILL; REVIEW CITY OF

BURLINGTON FILES FOR COPY OF FIRST

ASSURANCE OF DISCONTINUANCE; CON-

FERENCE WITH STEVE GOODKIND REGARD-

ING SAME.

09-18-85 MJC 3.50 140.00

REVIEW AEC FILE ON BURLINGTON LAND-

FILL; COPY DOCUMENTS.

09-19-85 WWP 50 42.50

READ UVM BOTANY STUDENT’S PAPER ON

LANDFILL.

09-19-85 MJC 1.00 40.00

ORGANIZE DOCUMENTS RECEIVED FROM

VAEC; TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH

VERMONT MAPPING AGENCY; LETTER TO

SAME REGARDING ORTHOPHOTOS OF BUR-

LINGTON LANDFILL TO LOCATE POINT

SOURCES.

09-23-85 MJC 1.00 40.00

CONFERENCE WITH ATTORNEY PEARSON

REGARDING BACKGROUND FOR DRAFTING

COMPLAINT AND MOTION FOR PRELIMI-

NARY INJUNCTION.

09-23-85 GLH 0.30 10.50

REVIEW CITY OF BURLINGTON AND STATE

OF VERMONT REPORTS ON WATER SAM-

Pi 2S TAKEN AT DESIGNATED AREAS

AROUND LANDFILL OVER THE PAST FEW

YEARS AND COMPARE RESULTS WITH THE

FEDERAL STANDARDS.

09-24-85 RNB 9.70 436.50

LEGAL RESEARCH ON RCRA’S HAZARDOUS

WASTE MANAGEMENT PROVISIONS AND

REGULATIONS ON “OPEN DUMPING” OF

SOLID WASTES; LEGAL RESEARCH ON VER-

MONT’S WASTE MANAGEMENT ACT; BEGIN

DRAFTING COMPLAINT; FURTHER ANAL-

YSIS OF RCRA REGULATIONS.

09-24-85 MJC 4.20 168.00

DRAFT LETTER TO STATE FOR ORTHO-

PHOTO MAPS TO BE USED AS TRIAL

EXHIBITS; REVIEW ASSURANCES OF DIS-

CONTINUANCE AND DRAFT MEMORAN-

DUM OUTLINING VIOLATIONS OF

ASSURANCE BY CITY OF BURLINGTON;

DEVELOP FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS FOR

COMPLAINT. . 5

09-25-85 RNB 8.60 387.00

CONTINUE LEGAL RESEARCH AND ANAL-

YSIS OF RCRA REQUIREMENTS AND REGU-

LATIONS; CONFERENCE WITH ATTORNEY

PEARSON REGARDING COMPLAINT AND

DEFENSES THERETO; OUTLINE CITY’S VIO-

LATIONS OF ASSURANCES OF DISCONTI-

NUANCE.

09-25-85 MJC 6.50 260.00

CONTINUE TO OUTLINE CITY’S VIOLATIONS

OF ASSURANCES; REVIEW FILE TO DOCU-

MENT SAME; PREPARE EXHIBITS FOR USE AS

COMPLAINT ATTACHMENTS OR FOR WIT-

NESS EXAMINATIONS; CONFERENCE WITH

ATTORNEY PEARSON REGARDING OVER-

ALL STRATEGY AND DIRECTION OF COM-

PLAINT AND FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS.

09-25-85 GLH 2.00 70.00

IDENTIFY AND LOCATE CITY OF BUR-

LINGTON STREET DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE

WHO OPERATED HEAVY EQUIPMENT AT

THE CITY LANDFILL.

09-26-85 WwWP 1.00 85.00

ANALYZE FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS OF COM-

PLAINT AND REVIEW EXHIBITS; TELE-

PHONE CONFERENCE WITH MR. PURCELL.

09-26-85 RNB 9.80 441.00

DRAFT FACT SECTIONS OF COMPLAINT

AND COMPILE SUPPORTING DOCUMENTA-

TION; ANALYZE PLEADING IN ALTERNA-

TIVE UNDER RCRA BASED ON HYBRID

STATUS OF LANDFILL.

09-26-85 MJC 8.50 340.00

ASSIST IN DRAFTING COMPLAINT; REVIEW

FILE AND VERIFY ALL FACTUAL ALLEGA-

TIONS; REVIEW FEDERAL RCRA REQUIRE-

MENTS AS APPLIED TO BURLINGTON

LANDFILL; CONFERENCE WITH ATTORNEY

PEARSON REGARDING ALTERNATIVE ALLE-

GATIONS BASED ON REGULATORY STATUS

OF BURLINGTON LANDFILL.

09-27-85 RNB 6.70 301.50

CONTINUE DRAFTING FACT SECTIONS OF

COMPLAINT.

09-27-85 MJC 5.50 220.00

REVIEW FILE; SUBSTANTIATE FACTUAL

ALLEGATIONS OF COMPLAINT; DRAFT

MEMORANDUM REGARDING REGULATORY

VIOLATIONS BY CITY; DRAFT LIST OF CITY’S

VIOLATIONS OF ASSURANCES FOR ALLEGA-

TIONS IN COMPLAINT.

09-29-85 RNB 6.90 310.50

FINISH DRAFTING AND SUBSTANTIATING

FACT SECTIONS OF COMPLAINT.

09-29-85 MJC 5.80 232.00

ANALYZE FACTUAL HISTORY OF BUR-

LINGTON LANDFILL AND ADMISSIONS OF

LIABILITY BY CITY AND STATE; REVIEW

AND ORGANIZE LANDFILL WATER WELL

TEST RESULTS; DRAFT LIST OF EPA CON-

TAMINANTS FOUND IN LANDFILL TEST

RESULTS.

09-30-85 RNB 10.40 468.00

DRAFT COUNT I-RCRA VIOLATIONS AND

COUNT II-CLEAN WATER ACT VIOLATIONS

OF COMPLAINT.

09-30-85 MJC 9.00 360.00

REVIEW SCIENTIFIC STUDIES PERFORMED

ON BURLINGTON LANDFILL; REVISE LIST

OF “TOXIC POLLUTANTS” IN LEACHATE

GENERATED BY BURLINGTON LANDFILL;

REVIEW FEDERAL REGULATIONS FOR VIO-

LATIONS BY CITY REGARDING LANDFILL

MANAGEMENT; ASSIST IN DRAFTING FAC-

TUAL ALLEGATIONS OF COMPLAINT; CON-

FERENCE WITH ATTORNEY PEARSON

REGARDING OVERALL DIRECTION OF LAW-

SUIT.

10-01-85 RNB 10.40 468.00

DRAFT COUNTS III - VII OF THE COM-

PLAINT AND REVISE SAME.

10-01-85 MJC 6.00 240.00

TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH TOM

MOREAU OF BURLINGTON WATER DEPART-

MENT REGARDING APPOINTMENT TO

REVIEW LANDFILL FILES AT WATER

DEPARTMENT; CONFERENCE WITH TOM

MOREAU; REVIEW OF WATER DEPARTMENT

FILE.

10-02-85 RNB 11.10 499.50

REVISE COMPLAINT; CONFERENCE WITH

ATTORNEY PEARSON TO ANALYZE RCRA

AND CWA PROVISIONS AND REGULATIONS.

10-02-85 MJC 7.80 312.00

ASSIST IN DRAFTING COMPLAINT; REVIEW

OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS AND STATUTES

AND APPLICATION OF FACTS TO LAW; CON-

FERENCE WITH ATTORNEY PEARSON

REGARDING SAME.

10-03-85 RNB 8.60 387.00

DRAFT FURTHER REVISIONS TO COM-

PLAINT.

10-03-85 MJC 4.00 160.00

COMPILE SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION

FOR FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS COMPLAINT;

REVIEW FEDERAL AND STATE REGULA-

TIONS AND STATUTES.

10-06-85 RNB 4.30 193.50

CONTINUE TO REVISE COMPLAINT,

INCLUDING SECTIONS ON PLAINTIFFS’

INJURIES AND COUNT VIII ON UNCOMPEN-

SATED TAKING; CONFERENCE WITH ATTOR-

NEY PEARSON REGARDING SAME.

10-07-85 RNB 7.50 337.50

IDENTIFY AND ANALYZE CLEAN WATER

ACT STANDARDS FOR PLAINTIFFS’ MEM-

ORANDUM FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNC-

TION; REVIEW SUPPORTING

MEMORANDUM FOR PRELIMINARY

INJUNCTION; REVISE SECTIONS OF COM-

PLAINT, CONFERENCE WITH ATTORNEY

PEARSON REGARDING COMPLAINT AND

SUPPORTING MEMORANDUM FOR PRELIMI-

NARY INJUNCTION.

10-07-85 MJC 3.50 140.00

REVISE EXHIBIT A TO COMPLAINT; REVIEW

ASSURANCES OF DISCONTINUANCE TO

DOCUMENT VIOLATIONS BY CITY; TELE-

PHONE CONFERENCE WITH CLIENTS

REGARDING FILING OF LAWSUIT.

10-08-85 RNB 8.50 382.50

REVIEW COMPLAINT WITH ERNEST DAGUE,

SR. AND ERNEST DAGUE, JR.; REVISE SEC-

TIONS OF PLAINTIFFS’ MEMORANDUM IN

SUPPORT OF A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION;

PROOFREAD COMPLAINT.

10-08-85 MJC 5.20 208.00

CONFERENCE WITH ATTORNEY BLAND

REGARDING PLAN FOR COMPLETION OF

COMPLAINT AND ASSOCIATED DOCU-

MENTS; TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH

EPA AND U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL'S

OFFICE IN WASHINGTON, D.C. REGARDING

SERVICE OF PROCESS REQUIRED BY FED-

ERAL STATUTE; TELEPHONE CONFERENCE

10/09/85

WITH CONSERVATION LAW FOUNDATION

REGARDING SAME AND THEORIES APPLI-

CABLE TO DAGUE CASE; PREPARATION FOR

FILING OF COMPLAINT.

FILE COMPLAINT AND DELIVER TO ATTOR-

NEYS BAILEY AND MCNEIL; TELEPHONE

CONFERENCE WITH ATTORNEY MCNEIL TO

VERIFY ACCEPTANCE OF SERVICE; DRAFT

LETTER REGARDING SERVICE BY MAIL TO

EPA AND U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL; ORGA-

NIZE FILE IN PREPARATION FOR FURTHER

WORK ON CASE.

10/10/85 RNB 0.90 40.50

PREPARATION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNC-

TION HEARING.

10/11/85 RNB 6.20 279.00

LEGAL RESEARCH ON “POINT SOURCES”

UNDER THE CLEAN WATER ACT; LEGAL

RESEARCH ON “SUBSTANTIAL AND IMMI-

NENT ENDANGERMENT” STANDARD IN

ENVIRONMENTAL STATUTES; LEGAL

RESEARCH ON WETLAND PROTECTION;

CONFERENCE WITH ATTORNEY PEARSON

REGARDING FURTHER ANALYSIS OF POSSI-

BLE DEFENSES UNDER RCRA AND CWA.

10/11/85 MJC 2.50 100.00

PREPARATION FOR HEARING ON MOTION

FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION.

10/14/85 WWP 3.50 297.50

INTERVIEW MR. BISSETTE [sic]; DRAFT

RETAINER AGREEMENT; READ NOTIFICA-

TION REGULATIONS; IDENTIFY EXPERTS

FOR AFFIDAVITS; REVIEW COMPLAINT FOR

FACTUAL BASIS.

MJC 4.50 180.00

10/14/85 RNB 7.20 324.00

LEGAL RESEARCH ON CASELAW AND COM-

MENTARY UNDER RCRA AND CWA; INTER-

VIEW WITH DONALD R. BESSETTE

REGARDING HIS MOTHER JOINING LAW-

SUIT; CONFERENCE WITH ATTORNEY PEAR-

SON REGARDING NEED FOR METHANE GAS

EXPERT AND EXPERT ON ENDANGERMENT

PRESENTED BY LANDFILL.

10/14/85 MJC 5.30 212.00

PREPARE PACKAGE OF INFORMATIONAL

MATERIALS FOR POTENTIAL EXPERTS;

ARRANGE FOR COPYING OF SAME; REVIEW

ALDERMEN’S AGENDA FOR POSSIBLE PUB-

LIC MEETING ON LANDFILL LAWSUIT; CON-

FERENCE ATTORNEY PEARSON IN

PREPARATION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNC-

TION HEARING; DRAFT INDEX TO EXPERT

MATERIALS; CONFERENCE WITH MR.

BESSETTE REGARDING NUISANCE AND

METHANE GAS CLAIMS AND POSSIBILITY

OF HIS MOTHER JOINING LAWSUIT AS

PLAINTIFF.

10/15/85 WWP 4.20 357.00

TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH DR. FIRE-

STONE, DR. REED, AND DR. ROEBUCK;

REVIEW TOXICOLOGY MATERIAL; REVIEW

FEDERAL RCRA REGULATIONS ON OPEN

DUMPING.

10/15/85 RNB 6.20 279.00

LEGAL RESEARCH OF CASELAW AND LEG-

ISLATIVE HISTORY OF RCRA AND CWA FOR

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION HEARING;

TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH THOMAS

MARTIN OF EPA, REGION V. REGARDING

EXPERT TO LOOK AT DATA AND TESTIFY AS

TO HAZARD PRESENTED TO PUBLIC

HEALTH AND THE ENVIRONMENT; FUR-

THER PREPARATION FOR HEARING.

10/15/85 MJjC 0.80 32.00

REVIEW PHOTOS OF LANDFILL SITE AND

FILE; CONFERENCE WITH ATTORNEY PEAR-

SON REGARDING ORGANIZATION OF FILE

IN PREPARATION FOR HEARING AND FUR-

THER INVESTIGATION IN PREPARATION

FOR HEARING.

10/15/85 WWB 0.50 15.00

LEGAL RESEARCH OF CASES AND LEGISLA-

TIVE HISTORY UNDER RCRA AND CWA.

10/16/85 WWP 1.50 127.50

TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH POTEN-

TIAL EXPERTS, DRS. FIRESTONE AND REED;

REVIEW LISTS OF HAZARDOUS WASTES.

10/16/85 RNB 3.70 166.50

LEGAL RESEARCH ON REQUIREMENT OF

SECURITY FOR THE ISSUANCE OF A PRELIM-

INARY INJUNCTION; ANALYZE INVESTIGA-

TIVE FINDINGS AT BESSETTE RESIDENCE;

LEGAL RESEARCH OF LEGISLATIVE HISTO-

RIES OF “HAZARDOUS AND SOLID WASTE

AMENDMENTS OF 1984” AND “SOLID

WASTE DISPOSAL ACT.”

10/16/85 MJC 4.00 160.00

INTERVIEW DON AND ROSE BESSETTE AT

MRS. BESSETTE’S HOME; INVESTIGATION OF

METHANE GAS MIGRATION THERE; COM-

PILE AND SEND EXPERT MATERIALS TO

EXPERTS.

10/17/85 RNB 4.20 ——- 189.00

TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH DR.

ROEBUCK OF DARTMOUGH [sic] MEDICAL

SCHOOL REGARDING REVIEW OF DATA TO

TESTIFY TO DETERMINE THAT LANDFILL

MAY PRESENT A SUBSTANTIAL AND IMMI-

NENT HAZARD TO THE PUBLIC HEALTH OR

THE ENVIRONMENT; FURTHER RESEARCH

OF CASELAW UNDER RCRA AND CWA.

10/18/85 WwWP 5.50 467.50

REVIEW FACT DOCUMENTS AND AMENDED

PLEADINGS.

10/18/85 RNB 6.30 283.50

LEGAL RESEARCH ON LEGISLATIVE HISTO-

RIES OF RCRA AND CWA; DRAFT MOTION

AND ORDER TO ADD A PARTY PLAINTIFF

AND FILE AN AMENDED COMPLAINT;

DRAFT AMENDED COMPLAINT; CONFER-

ENCE WITH ATTORNEY PEARSON REGARD-

ING MEETING WITH JULIE HACKBARDTH

[sic].

10/18/85 MJC 1.00 40.00

CONFERENCE WITH DON BESSETTE AND

LOUIS BESSETTE.

10/18/85 GLH 2.50 87.50

INTERVIEWS OF PROPERTY OWNERS ADJA-

CANT TO THE CITY LANDFILL.

10/21/85 WwwPp 5.50 467.50

CONFERENCE WITH CLIENTS; DRAFT AFFI-

DAVITS; RESEARCH OPEN DUMPING REGU-

LATIONS UNDER RCRA AND COMPARE

WITH AVAILABLE EVIDENCE.

10/21/85 RNB 2.40 108.00

PREPARE FOR CONFERENCE WITH DAGUES

ABOUT STATUS OF CASE AND ADDING

ROSE A. BESSETTE AS A PARTY PLAINTIFF;

LEGAL RESEARCH ON REGULATION OF

METHANE GAS UNDER RCRA; LEGAL

RESEARCH ON GROUNDWATER PROTEC-

TION UNDER RCRA.

10/21/85 MJC 2.20 88.00

CONFERENCE WITH ATTORNEY PEARSON

REGARDING ADDING ROSE BESSETTE AS

PARTY PLAINTIFF TO LAWSUIT; CONFER-

ENCE WITH DAGUES REGARDING SAME.

10/22/85 WwwpP 5.50 467.50

READ AND RESPOND TO MOTION TO CON-

TINUE; TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH

COURT; REVISE OPPOSING MEMORANDUM;

LEGAL RESEARCH ON PRELIMINARY

INJUNCTION GROUNDS.

10/22/85 RBL 2.50 150.00

PREPARATION FOR HEARING ON MOTION

FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION; LEGAL

RESEARCH REGARDING MOTION TO JOIN

AND MOTION TO AMEND COMPLAINT.

10/22/85 RNB 7.30 328.50

TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH DR. WIL-

LIAM ROEBUCK OF DARTMOUTH MEDICAL

SCHOOL REGARDING HIS REVIEW OF

EXPERT MATERIALS; TELEPHONE CONFER-

ENCE WITH PROFESSOR REED OF VERMONT

LAW SCHOOL REGARDING HIS REVIEW OF

THE EXPERT DATA; PREPARATION FOR PRE-

LIMINARY INJUNCTION HEARING AND

ANALYZE MOTION TO CONTINUE HEARING

FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION; DRAFT

OPPOSING MEMORANDUM.

10/22/85 MJC 3.00 120.00

INTERVIEW WITH TIM LYMAN, SITE VIEW-

ING AND PHOTOS.

10/23/85 wwp 5.50 467.50

WORK ON HERMANCE AFFIDAVIT; TWO

TELEPHONE CONFERENCES WITH DR. HER-

MANCE; READ METHANE GAS REPORTS;

REVIEW OTHER AFFIDAVITS; FURTHER

RESEARCH ON PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

STANDARDS; DELIVER DOCUMENTS TO

HERMANCE.

10/23/85 RBL 4.00 240.00

LEGAL RESEARCH IN RESPONSE TO

MOTION TO CONTINUE HEARING FOR PRE-

LIMINARY INJUNCTION; COMPREHENSIVE

REVISION TO MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSI-

TION; EDIT FINAL DRAFT OF MOTION TO

JOIN AND AMEND COMPLAINT.

10/23/85 RNB 8.70 391.50

DRAFT AFFIDAVITS IN SUPPORT OF MOTION

FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION; REVISE OF

MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO

MOTION TO CONTINUE HEARING; TELE-

PHONE CONFERENCE WITH CHRIS FASTIE,

GRADUATE STUDENT OF DEPARTMENT OF

BOTANY AT UVM REGARDING HIS AFFI-

DAVIT AND THE UVM HYDROGEOLOGIC

STUDY.

10/23/85 MJC 4.20 168.00

TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH RUTH

EINSTEIN AND JULIE HACKBARTH REGARD-

ING TESTIMONY AT PRELIMINARY INJUNC-

TION HEARING; DRAFT DAGUE AFFIDAVIT

AND TWO CASE AFFIDAVITS; ORGANIZE

FILE IN PREPARATION FOR PRELIMINARY

INJUNCTION HEARING; PREPARE INFOR-

MATION PACKAGE FOR EXPERTS.

10/24/85 wwpP 3.00 255.00

PREPARATION AND FILING OF AFFIDAVITS;

TELEPHONE CONFERENCES WITH EXPERTS;

TELEPHONE CONFERENCES WITH MS.

SMITH; CONFERENCE WITH CLIENTS; PRE-

PARE FOR HEARING.

10/24/85 RBL 3.00 180.00

DRAFT ADDITIONAL LANGUAGE TO SUP-

PLEMENT MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION

TO MOTION TO CONTINUE; DRAFT MEM-

ORANDUM ON PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

STANDARDS.

10/24/85 RNB 9.20 414.00

INTERVIEW DR. CLARKE HERMANCE, PRO-

FESSOR OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERING AT

UVM, REGARDING HIS REVIEW OF DOCU-

MENTS PERTAINING TO THE MIGRATION OF

METHANE GAS FROM THE BURLINGTON

LANDFILL; REVISE DR. HERMANCE’S AFFI-

DAVIT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PRE-

LIMINARY INJUNCTION; PREPARATION FOR

HEARING ON PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION; TELEPHONE

CONFERENCE WITH DR. WILLIAM

ROEBUCK, PROFESSOR OF TOXICOLOGY AT

THE DARTMOUTH MEDICAL SCHOOL; TELE-

PHONE CONFERENCE WITH DR. FRANK

REED AT THE VERMONT LAW SCHOOL.

10/24/85 MJC 8.60 344.00

PREPARATION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNC-

TION HEARING; DRAFT AND REVISE CASE

AFFIDAVITS AND ADD ATTACHMENTS;

DRAFT AND REVISE DAGUE AFFIDAVIT

AND ADD ATTACHMENTS; ORGANIZE FILE;

CONFERENCE WITH ATTORNEY PEARSON

REGARDING EVIDENCE; ARRANGE EXECU-

TION OF AFFIDAVITS.

10/24/85 GLH 4.00 140.00

REVIEW AND ORGANIZE REPORTS FROM

LOCAL, STATE AND FEDERAL GOVERN-

MENTS AND FROM GENERATORS; PREPARE

SUPPORTING AFFIDAVITS WITH ATTACH-

MENTS AND FILE MOTION AND DOCU-

MENTS WITH THE U.S. DISTRICT COURT;

CONFERENCE WITH MR. CHRIS FASTIE

REGARDING HIS RESEARCH PROJECT AT

THE BURLINGTON LANDFILL AND HIS

AFFIDAVIT.

10/25/85 Wwwp 4.00 340.00

PREPARE FOR HEARING ON MOTION FOR

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION.

10/25/85 RNB 7.60 342.00

DRAFT AFFIDAVIT OF DR. FRANK REED;

PREPARATION FOR HEARING ON PRELIMI-

NARY INJUNCTION; TELEPHONE CONFER-

ENCES WITH JULIE HACKBARDTH [sic] AND

RUTH EINSTEIN REGARDING THEIR TESTI-

MONY AT PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

HEARING; INTERVIEW DR. FRANK REED,

PROFESSOR OF ECOLOGY AT THE ENVIRON-

MENTAL LAW CENTER AT THE VERMONT

LAW SCHOOL.

10/25/85 MJC 4.50 180.00

MEETING WITH CLIENTS TO SIGN AFFI-

DAVITS FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

HEARING; INSPECT BESSETTE PROPERTY:

TEST BASEMENT, YARD AND BANK HOLES

FOR PRESENCE OF METHANE GAS. .

10/25/85 GLH 1.00 35.00

SET UP CAMERA EQUIPMENT; CONFERENCE

WITH DR. FRANK REED.

10/26/85 WwWP 2.00 170.00

PREPARE FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

HEARING.

10/26/85 RNB 2.20 99.00

FURTHER LEGAL RESEARCH ON NOTICE

AND OTHER PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS

FOR CITIZEN SUITS BROUGHT UNDER RCRA

AND THE CLEAN WATER ACT.

10/26/85 MJC 1.00 40.00

INSPECT BURLINGTON LANDFILL SITE FOR

POINT SOURCES OF LEACHATE MIGRATION;

OBSERVE WILDLIFE IN INTERVALE.

10/27/85 WwP 12.00 1,020.00

PREPARATION FOR TOMORROW’S PRELIMI-

NARY INJUNCTION HEARING.

10/27/85 RNB 11.20 504.00

PREPARATION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUC-

TION [SIC] HEARING; DRAFT JURISDIC-

TIONAL BASES AND ARGUMENTS FOR

EACH COUNT FOR TRIAL NOTEBOOK; TELE-

PHONE CONFERENCE WITH CHRIS FASTIE

REGARDING HIS TESTIMONY AT HEARING.

10/27/85 MJC 10.50 420.00

PREPARATION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNC-

TION HEARING; REVIEW EVIDENCE AND

EXPERT OPINIONS; DRAFT SUBPOENAS FOR

CITY EMPLOYEES; STATUS MEMORANDUM

REGARDING CONTAMINATION FOUND IN

LEACHATE WELLS; ORGANIZE FILE FOR USE

IN HEARING; COPY EXHIBITS TO BE

ENTERED IN EVIDENCE; SERVICE OF SUB-

POENA ON MOREAU; ATTEMPTS TO SERVE

SUBPOENA ON GOODKIND.

10/28/85 WwwpP 10.00 850.00

PREPARE FOR AND REPRESENT CLIENTS AT

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION HEARING IN

FEDERAL COURT.

10/28/85 RNB 7.40 333.00

PREPARATION FOR AND ASSIST AT HEAR-

ING ON PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION.

10/28/85 MJC 7.50 300.00

PREPARATION FOR AND ATTENDANCE AT

HEARING; SERVICE OF SUBPOENAS ON

GOODKIND, OGDEN, EINSTEIN, AND HACK-

BARTH; CONFERENCE WITH EINSTEIN AND

HACKBARTH REGARDING REGULATION OF

LANDFILL.

10/29/85 WwwpP 2.00 170.00

OUTLINE PEARSON AFFIDAVIT; TELEPHONE

CONFERENCES WITH CLIENTS; PLAN DIS-

COVERY.

10/29/85 RNB 1.20 54.00

LEGAL RESEARCH ON CLEAN WATER ACT

CASES INVOLVING DISCHARGES OF POLLU-

TANTS INTO A NAVIGABLE WATERWAY

FROM A POINT SOURCE WITHOUT A NPDES

PERMIT AND ON RCRA CASES INVOLVING

ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION TO ABATE SUB-

STANTIAL AND IMMINENT HAZARDS;

PLAN DISCOVERY

10/30/85 Wwwp 2.00 170.00

OUTLINE INTERVIEW; TELEPHONE CONFER-

ENCES WITH CLIENTS; TELEPHONE CON-

FERENCE WITH CITY ATTORNEY OFFICE;

OUTLINE STRATEGY FOR HEARING ON

NINTH.

10/30/85 RNB 3.40 153.00

ANALYZE AFFIDAVIT OF COMPLIANCE

WITH NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS AND

RESPONSE TO MOTION TO DISMISS; JOINT

MEMORANDUM ON TESTIMONY GIVEN AT

10-28 HEARING; BEGIN DRAFTING MEM-

ORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO

DISMISS; REVIEW CASELAW ON NOTICE

UNDER RCRA AND CWA; REVIEW FIRST

PART OF PLAINTIFFS’ INTERROGATORIES.

10/31/85 Wwwp 0.40 34.00

REVIEW INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS

TO PRODUCE.

10/31/85 RNB 1.20 54.00

REVIEW AND REVISE INTERROGATORIES

AND REQUESTS TO PRODUCE; REVISE MEM-

ORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO

DISMISS; TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH

LIBRARIAN AT VERMONT LAW SCHOOL

REGARDING NOTE ON CITIZEN SUITS.

10/31/85 MJC 10.50 420.00

CONFERENCE WITH ATTORNEY PEARSON

REGARDING FURTHER WORK IN PREPARA-

TION FOR 12@10@85 COURT HEARING;

ARRANGE FOR COPYING OF HEARING

EXHIBITS; DRAFT ADDTIONAL [SIC] INTER-

ROGATORIES AND REQUESTS TO PRODUCE;

DRAFT MEMORANDUM REGARDING TESTI-

MONY HEARD ON 10®28@85 HEARING;

REVISE INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS

TO PRODUCE TO CITY; REVISE MEMORAN-

DUM REGARDING WITNESS TESTIMONY AT

10®@28@85 HEARING; ORGANIZE FILE FOR

FUTURE USE.

11/01/85 WWP 2.40 204.00

REVIEW INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS

TO PRODUCE; PLAN FURTHER INVESTIGA-

TION AND DISCOVERY.

11/01/85 RNB 1.30 58.50

PLAN DEPOSITIONS OF DEFENDANT'S WIT-

NESSES AND GENERATORS OF HAZARDOUS

WASTES; REVIEW AND ANALYZE DOCU-

MENTS PERTAINING TO GENERATORS

WHICH DISPOSED OF HAZARDOUS WASTES

IN THE BURLINGTON LANDFILL.

11/01/85 MJC 0.80 32.00

REVIEW PHOTOS FOR USE AT CONTINUED

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION HEARING AND-

OR TRIAL.

11/04/85 WwWP 1.50 127.50

EDIT SUBPOENAS AND NOTICES OF DEPOSI-

TION; TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH CLI-

ENT; TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH CITY

ATTORNEY OFFICE; REVIEW AND ANALYZE

ANSWERS TO INTERROGATORIES AND

REQUESTS TO PRODUCE.

11/04/85 RNB 1.00 45.00

CONFERENCE WITH ATTORNEY PEARSON

REGARDING SCHEDULING OF DEPOSI-

TIONS; LEGAL RESEARCH ON “REASON-

ABLE NOTICE” REQUIREMENT OF RULE

30(B)(1) OF THE F.R.CIV.P.; REVIEW SUB-

POENAS.

11/04/85 MJC 3.00 120.00

PREPARE SUBPOENAS, NOTICES OF DEPOSI-

TIONS, AND CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE FOR

DEPOSITIONS OF HAZARDOUS WASTE GEN-

ERATORS® DISPOSERS; REVISE WITNESS

AFFIDAVITS; REVISE TELEPHONE CONTACT

LIST FOR FILE; TELEPHONE CONFERENCE

WITH ATTORNEY SHEAHAN REGARDING

MALFUNCTION OF DAGUE GAS METER.

11/05/85 WwWwP 2.80 238.00

REVISE MOTION TO DISMISS; EDIT PLAIN-

TIFFS’ INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS

TO PRODUCE; FURTHER REVIEW OF CITY’S

RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY REQUESTS.

11/05/85 RNB 1.20 54.00

PLAN DISCOVERY; REVIEW WITNESS AFFI-

DAVITS, SUBPOENAS AND NOTICES OF

DEPOSITIONS; REVIEW SUPPLEMENTAL

NOTICE LETTER; REVIEW ATTORNEY PEAR-

SON’S AFFIDAVIT; FURTHER ANALYSIS OF

PLAINTIFFS’ INTERROGATORIES AND

REQUESTS TO PRODUCE AN MEMORAN-

DUM IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DIS-

MISS; ANALYZE BOARD OF ALDERMEN

APPROPRIATION ON 11-4; REVIEW AND

ANALYZE ANSWER.

11/05/85 MJC 8.30 332.00

REVIEW AND REVISE DEPOSITION SUB-

POENAS TO HAZARDOUS WASTE GENERA-

TORS; REVIEW AND REVISE NOTICES OF

DEPOSITIONS; DRAFT ENCLOSURE LETTERS;

ARRANGE FOR COPYING OF ATTACHMENTS

~TO DOCUMENTS TO BE FILED WITH COURT;

ARRANGE FOR SERVICE OF SUBPOENAS;

SERVE SUBPOENAS ON THREE GENERA-

TORS; CONFERENCE WITH EACH GENERA-

TOR REGARDING DEPOSITIONS TO BE

TAKEN.

11/05/85 GLH 2.00 70.00

SERVE SUBPOENAS ON THE WHITING CO.

AND HAGAR HARDWARE CO.

11/06/85 wwp 2.80 238.00

PLAN FURTHER INVESTIGATION AND DIS-

COVERY; REVIEW PLEADINGS; LETTER TO

MESSRS. THOMAS, SANDERS AND WILSON.

11/06/85 RNB 13.30 598.50

DRAFT AND REVISE PLAINTIFFS’ INTER-

ROGATORIES AND REQUESTS TO PRODUCE;

TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH MR. DILL

OF E.B. & A.C. WHITING COMPANY

REGARDING RESCHEDULING OF HIS DEPO-

SITION.

11/06/85 MJC 6.50 260.00

WORK ON INTERROGATORIES AND

REQUESTS TO PRODUCE TO CITY BASED ON

PLEADINGS AND EXTENSIVE REVIEW OF

FACT RESEARCH IN FILE.

11/07/85 WwwpP 2.00 170.00

RESEARCH EPA ENFORCEMENT POLICY

AND JOINT AND SEVERAL LIABILITY

UNDER RCRA; OFFICE CONFERENCE ON

INTERROGATORIES, DEPOSITIONS AND

MOTIONS.

11/07/85 RNB 3.40 153.00

REVIEW NOTE ON CITIZEN SUITS; DRAFT

ADDITIONAL REQUESTS TO PRODUCE;

TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH ATTOR-

NEY MIKE SHINE REGARDING SCHEDULING

MR. DILL’S DEPOSITION; LEGAL RESEARCH

ON EVASIVE RESPONSES TO COMPLAINT;

TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH ATTOR-

NEY BOB HEMLEY REGARDING

RESCHEDULING DEPOSITION OF G.E.

EMPLOYEE.

11/07/85 MJC 6.40 256.00

ORGANIZE FILE; REVISE INTERROGATORIES

AND REQUESTS TO PRODUCE; FILE DISCOV-

ERY DOCUMENTS WITH COURT AND OPPO-

SITE COUNSEL; TELEPHONE CONFERENCE

WITH ATTORNEYS PEARSON AND BLAND

REGARDING SERVICE OF DEPOSITION SUB-

POENAS; REVISE TELEPHONE LIST TO

INCLUDE GENERATORS’ ATTORNEYS.

11/08/85 WWP 2.00 170.00

CONTINUE LEGAL RESEARCH ON

ENFORCEMENT POLICY; TELEPHONE CON-

FERENCE WITH MR. HEMLEY; TELEPHONE

CONFERENCE WITH MR. SHIEN’S OFFICE.

11/08/85 RBL 0.50 30.00

TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH MR.

DAGUE REGARDING CITY EMPLOYEE’S

VISIT AT HIS HOME TODAY WITHOUT

ADVANCE NOTICE TO US OR TO MR. —

DAGUE.

11/08/85 MJC 6.10 244.00

DRAFT RESPONSES TO REQUESTS TO PRO-

DUCE; EXTENSIVE REVIEW OF FILE FOR

RESPONSIVE DOCUMENTS.

11/11/85 WwWP 3.20 272.00

TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH MR.

HEMLEY; PLAN DEPOSITIONS; TELEPHONE

CONFERENCE WITH MR. PERRY’S OFFICE;

ORGANIZE DEPOSITION EXHIBITS; TELE-

PHONE CONFERENCE WITH MR. SCHIEN;

TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH MR. HILL;

REVIEW GENERATOR RECORDS.

11/12/85 WwWP 3.50 297.50

REVIEW AND EDIT ANSWERS TO INTER-

ROGATORIES; TELEPHONE CONFERENCE

WITH OPPOSING ATTORNEYS REGARDING

DEPOSITIONS; TELEPHONE CONFERENCE

WITH CLIENT; TELEPHONE CONFERENCE

WITH DEFENDANT; TELEPHONE CONFER-

ENCE WITH MR. HEMLEY.

11/12/85 RNB 0.80 36.00

REVIEW PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSES TO INTER-

ROGATORIES AND REQUESTS TO PRODUCE;

TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH RUTH

EINSTEIN REGARDING THE FACTS AND

OPINIONS TO WHICH SHE IS EXPECTED TO

TESTIFY AT HEARING ON 12-9-85; TELE-

PHONE CONFERENCE WITH THOMAS MAR-

TIN OF EPA, REGION V, REGARDING

EXPERTS.

11/13/85 Wwwp 5.50 467.50

PREPARE FOR AND TAKE DEPOSITIONS OF

GOODKIND AND MOREAU; TELEPHONE

CONFERENCES WITH CITY ATTORNEY;

TELEPHONE CONFERENCES WITH CLIENT.

11/13/85 RNB 3.80 171.00

TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH DONALD

BESSETTE REGARDING EXECUTION OF

PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSES TO INTERROGATO-

RIES AND REQUESTS TO PRODUCE; ATTEND

DEPOSITIONS OF THOMAS MOREAU AND

~ STEVEN GOODKIND.

11/13/85 MJC 6.50 260.00

REVIEW AND REVISE RESPONSES TO INTER-

ROGATORIES AND REQUESTS TO PRODUCE;

ARRANGE FOR COPYING OF ATTACHMENTS

TO SAME; DELIVERY TO CLIBNTS FOR SIG-

NATURES; CONFERENCE WITH CLIENTS

REGARDING RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY

REQUESTS.

11/14/85 WwWP 4.50 382.50

PREPARE FOR AND DEPOSE JAMES ROBEAR

OF BLODGETT CO.; TELEPHONE CONFER-

ENCE WITH MR. HAGAR; PREPARATION FOR

TOMORROW’S DEPOSITIONS; CONFERENCE

WITH MR. CLAPP. ‘

11/14/85 RNB 2.60 117.00

REVIEW STATUS OF CASE; PREPARATION

FOR AND ATTEND DEPOSITION OF JAMES

ROBEAR OF THE G.S. BLODGETT COMPANY,

INC.

14/85 MJC 3.60 144.00

es ORGANIZE. FILE; DELIVERY OF RESPONSES

TO INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS TO

PRODUCE TO MR. BESSETTE FOR SIGNA-

TURE; ASSIST IN PREPARATION FOR AND

ATTEND DEPOSITION OF BLODGETT REPRE-

SENTATIVE.

11/15/85 WWP 3.50 297.50

DEPOSE REPRESENTATIVE OF EDLUND

CORP; CONFERENCE WITH MR. HAGAR;

DEPOSITION OF REPRESENTATIVE OF

WHITING CO; REVIEW HEMLEY LETTER;

PREPARATION FOR DEPOSITIONS.

11/15/85 RNB 6.10 274.50

PREPARATION FOR DEPOSITIONS OF GEN-

ERATORS HAGAR HARDEWARE [SIC] AND

PAINT, CO., THE EDLUND COMPANY, AND

THE E.B. & A.C. WHITING CO.; ATTEND

DEPOSITION OF LARRY BARTLETT OF THE

EDLUND COMPANY; DEPOSE ROBERT DILL

OF THE E.B. & A.C. WHITING CO.

~ 11/15/85 MJC 2.50 100.00

PREPARATION FOR AND ATTEND DEPOSI-

TIONS OF HAZARDOUS WASTE GENERA-

TORS; TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH

ERNIE DAGUE, JR. REGARDING TRASH IN

YARD, ARRANGEMENTS FOR INSTALLA-

TION OF METER AND TESTING FOR GAS IN

HOUSE; ORGANIZE DEPOSITION EXHIBITS.

11/18/85 WwPpP 1.00 85.00

PREPARATION FOR DEPOSITIONS OF G.E.,

DR. REED AND MR. PERRY; ARRANGE DIS-

COVERY SEQUENCE.

11/18/85 RNB 0.60 27.00

TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH DR.

FRANK REED OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL

LAW CENTER, VERMONT LAW SCHOOL,

REGARDING SCHEDULING OF HIS DEPOSI-

TION, TESTIMONY LIKELY TO BE ELICITED

AT HIS DEPOSITION, AND INFORMATION

NEEDED TO PREPARE FOR HIS DEPOSITION;

TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH LEONARD

PERRY, STATE OF VERMONT HOR.

TICULTURALIST, REGARDING FACTS OF

CASE AND HIS EXPERTISE AND HIS AVAIL-

ABILITY TO BE A WITNESS.

11/18/85 MJC 1.00 40.00

FURTHER INVESTIGATION REGARDING

EDLUND CO. WASTE DISPOSAL; TELEPHONE

CONFERENCE WITH JOHN GILLIGAN,

FORMERLY OF EDLUND, REGARDING SAME:

MEMORANDUM TO FILE REGARDING

INTERVIEW WITH GILLIGAN.

11/19/85 Wwwp 0.30 25.50

REVIEW DEPOSITION SCHEDULE.

11/19/85 MJC 0.30 12.00

REVIEW INFORMATION TO BE SENT TO

EXPERTS.

11/20/85 MJC 0.30 12.00

ANALYZE NEED FOR SITE VISIT BY

LEONARD PERRY.

11/21/85 MJC 3.50 140.00

CIRCULATE COPIES OF DEPOSITION

EXHIBITS TO OPPOSITE COUNSEL AND

COUNSEL FOR DEPONENTS; LETTERS AND

COPYING BILLS TO SAME; ORGANIZE FILE;

TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH LEONARD

PERRY REGARDING SITE INSPECTION; SEND

EXPERT INFORMATION TO DR. REED.

11/22/85 Wwwp 1.00 85.00

REVIEW DEPOSITION SCHEDULE; PREPARA-

TION FOR CONFERENCES WITH PROF.

PERRY AND PROF. REED; TELEPHONE CON-

FERENCE WITH CLIENT.

11/25/85 WwwpP 2.80 238.00

PREPARE FOR TOMORROW'S DEPOSITION;

TWO TELEPHONE CONFERENCES WITH MR.

HEMLEY; THREE TELEPHONE CONFER-

ENCES WITH COURT; OFFICE CONFERENCE

ON PROTECTIVE ORDER.

11/25/85 RNB 1.00 45.00

TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH ATTOR-

NEY BOB HEMLEY, COUNSEL FOR GENERAL

ELECTRIC, REGARDING PROTECTIVE ORDER

TO PREVENT DISCLOSURE OF TESTIMONY

AND CONTENTS OF DOCUMENTS TO ANY-

ONE OTHER THAN COUNSEL PRESENT AT

DEPOSITION; CONFERENCE WITH DR.

LEONARD PERRY REGARDING HIS INVESTI-

GATION OF LANDFILL SITE AND HIS CON-

CLUSIONS ON THE EFFECTS OF METHANE

GAS ON TREES, SHRUBS AND VEGETATION;

STATUS REVIEW OF CASE AND PLAN FUR-

THER INVESTIGATION AND DISCOVERY.

11/25/85 MJC 2.50 100.00

DISCUSS INTERROGATORIES WITH LEO

PERRY, HORTICULTURAL EXPERT: VISIT

LANDFILL; REVIEW DOCUMENTS WITH

PERRY; ANALYZE PERRY’S OPINIONS.

11/26/85 WwWwWwPpP 8.00 680.00

REVIEW DOCUMENTS AND PROTECTIVE

ORDER; PREPARATION FOR AND TAKE

DEPOSITION OF G.E. REPRESENTATIVE; TWO

TELEPHONE CONFERENCES W

Ln ITH DR.

11/26/85 RNB 6.70 301.50

PREPARATION FOR AND ATTEND DEPOSI. —

TION OF DONALD STEWART OF G.E.: TELE.

PHONE CONFERENCE WITH DR. FRANK

REED OF VERMONT LAW SCHOOL REGARD.

ING HIS DEPOSITION.

11/26/85 MJC 2.60 104.00

PREPARATION FOR DEPOSITION OF GE. _

REPRESENTATIVE; ATTEND DEPOSITION

WITH NOTES TO FILE; PREPARE DE

EXHIBITS. —

11/27/85 | WWP 3.50 297.50

PREPARE FOR AND ATTEND DEPOSITION OF |

PROF. REED; READ AND ANALYZE CITY'S

ANSWERS TO INTERROGATORIES: PLAN

RESPONSE AND OVERALL STRATEGY

11/27/85 RNB 6.30 283.50

PREPARATION FOR AND ATTEND DEPOSI. _

TION OF DR. FRANK REED: REVIEW AND

ANALYZE DEFENDANT'S RESPONSES TO

PLAINTIFFS’ INTERROGATORIES: PREPARA.

TION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUN

HEARING. —

48.00

11/27/85 MJC 1.20

PREPARATION FOR DEPOSITION OF DR.

FRANK REED; PROVIDE DOCUMENTS TO

DR. REED.

20.00

12/01/85 MJC 0.50

PREPARATION FOR 12-9-85 HEARING.

12/02/85 wwpe 9.20 782.00

NALYZE METHANE GAS PROBLEM; CON-

FERENCE WITH CLIENTS; TELEPHONE CON-

FERENCE WITH MS. SHEHAN; PREPARE FOR

HEARING AND DEPOSITIONS; REVIEW

MOREAU BOOKS; DEPOSITION OF MR.

MOREAU; TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH

CLIENT; TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH

MR. MCNEIL; READ MOTION TO JOIN AND -

THIRD PARTY COMPLAINT.

RNB -8.50 382.50

ee PREPARATION FOR PRELIMINARY fNJUNC-

TION HEARING; CONFERENCE WITH ERNIE

AND BETTY DAGUE REGARDING GAS

METER READINGS AND STATUS OF CASE;

COMPILATION OF STATUTORY, REGULA-

TORY AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY MATE-

RIALS ON OPEN DUMPING PROHIBITION OF

RCRA; ORGANIZE GE DEPOSITION

EXHIBITS; COMPILE NOTES OF DEPOSITION

TESTIMONY; COMPILE AND ORGANIZE

CASELAW.

M 6.20 248.00

I puarenaaant FOR 12-9-85 HEARING; TRIP

TO DAGUES TO. OVERSEE GAS TESTING;

TRIP TO BURLINGTON WATER DEPARTMENT

FOR MOREAU LANDFILL RECORDS; PLAN

FURTHER INVESTIGATION.

12/03/85 wwp 6.00 510.00

PREPARE FOR GOODKIND DEPOSITION;

TAKE SAME; REVIEW GOODKIND DOCU-

MENTS.

12/03/85 RNB 9.20 414.00

PREPARATION FOR HEARING; DRAFT LIST

OF HAZARDOUS WASTES DISPOSED OF IN

BURLINGTON LANDFILL ACCORDING TO

DEPOSITION EXHIBITS AND TESTIMONY;

PREPARATION FOR AND ATTEND GOOD.-

KIND DEPOSITION; BEGIN DRAFTING PRO-

POSED FINDINGS OF FACT.

12/03/85 MJC 6.80 272.00

ORGANIZE WORK TO BE DONE; ATTEND

GOODKIND DEPOSITION. TELEPHONE CON.-

FERENCE WITH COURT REPORTERS; REVIEW

FACTUAL BASIS OF LEGAL CLAIMS.

12/04/85 wwp 1.50 127.50

TELEPHONE CONFERENCES WITH DR.

REED; ORGANIZE REED DOCUMENTS;

REVIEW REED AFFIDAVIT: TELEPHONE

CONFERENCE WITH CLIENT

12/04/85 RNB 9.40 423.00

FINISH DRAFTING PROPOSED FINDINGS OF

FACT (WITH SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS),

DRAFT PROPOSED CONCLUSIONS OF LAW;

REVIEW AND ANALYZE PROPOSED FIND-

INGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW.

12/04/85 MJC 0.40 16.00

TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH ERNIE

DAGUE, JR. REGARDING GAS READINGS IN

HOUSE; MEMORANDUM TO ATTORNEY

PEARSON REGARDING SAME.

12/05/85 WwwpP 7.50 637.50

REVIEW SCOPE OF REED DEPOSITION WITH

DR. REED; PREPARE MOTION AND MEM-

ORANDUM FOR SANCTIONS; PREPARE FOR

MONDAY’S HEARING.

12/05/85 RNB 9.30 418.50

CONFERENCE WITH DR. FRANK REED IN

PREPARATION FOR HIS DEPOSITION;

ATTEND SAME; PREPARATION FOR HEAR-

ING.

12/05/85 MJC 4.50 180.00

ASSIST PREPARATION FOR DR. REED DEPO-

SITION; CONFERENCE WITH DR. REED

REGARDING SAME.

12/06/85 WwWwpP 8.00 680.00

REVIEW SIGNED INTERROGATORIES,

MOTION FOR SANCTIONS; PREPARE FOR

MONDAY’S HEARING; TELEPHONE CON-

FERENCES WITH ATTORNEY CLAPP; TELE-

PHONE CONFERENCE WITH DR. REED:

OFFICE CONFERENCE WITH COURT REPOR-

TER; OUTLINE FINDINGS OF FACT; REVIEW

OGDEN DOCUMENTS.

12/06/85 RNB 8.30 373.50

EXTENSIVE PREPARATION FOR HEARING

ON PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION.

12/06/85 MJC 3.00 120.00

REVIEW GOODKIND FILES; COPY NEW DOC.

UMENTS TO BE USED AT HEARING; CON-

FERENCE WITH ATTORNEY PEARSON

REGARDING WORK TO BE DONE.

12-07-85 RNB 5.30 238.50

REVISE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT; THO-

ROUGH REVIEW OF DEPOSITION TRAN-

SCRIPTS AND EXHIBITS.

12-08-85 Wwwp 13.00 1,105.00

PREPARATION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNC-

TION HEARING

12-08-85 RNB 11.20 504.00

PREPARATION FOR HEARING ON PRELIMI-

NARY INJUNCTION; DRAFT CHRONOLOGY

AND REVISE PARTIAL PROPOSED FINDINGS

OF FACT AND COMPILE DOCUMENTS

THEREFOR; REVIEW ITEMS TO BE OFFERED

INTO EVIDENCE AT THE HEARING.

12-08-85 MJC 13.00 520.00

PREPARATION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNC-

TION HEARING; COPY EXHIBITS FOR PRO-

POSED FINDINGS OF FACT; ASSEMBLE

PACKAGE OF DOCUMENTS FOR FILING

WITH COURT; REVIEW AND ORGANIZE

FILE.

12-09-85 wwp 11.70 994.50

PREPARE FOR AND ATTEND HEARING; PRE-

PARE FOR AND TAKE COUNTRYMAN’S

DEPOSITION.

12-09-85 RNB 11.70 526.50

PREPARATION FOR HEARING; ATTEND AND

ASSIST AT SAME; PREPARATION FOR DEPO-

SITION OF WILLIAM COUNTRYMAN;

ATTEND AND ASSIST AT SAME.

12-09-85 MJC 10.60 424.00

PREPARATION FOR AND ATTEND PRELIMI-

NARY INJUNCTION HEARING; NOTETAK.

ING; ANALYZE WITNESS TESTIMONY.

12-09-85 GLH 1.20 42.00

ASSIST IN TRANSPORTING AND DELIVER.

ING FILES TO FEDERAL COURT FOR HEAR.

ING.

12-10-85 wwpe 10.00 850.00

PREPARATION FOR AND TAKE DEPOSITION

OF MR. HEINDEL.

12-10-85 RNB 8.40 378.00

TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH DON

BESSETTE REGARDING STATUS OF CASE

AND HIS ATTENDANCE AT HEARING FOR

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION; DRAFT ADDI-

TIONAL PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT;

OUTLINE DEPOSITION OF WILLIAM COUN.

TRYMAN AND TOPICS FOR CROSS EXAM-

INATION; PREPARATION FOR HEARING;

ATTEND AND ASSIST AT HEARING.

12-10-85 MjC 9.30 372.00

PREPARATION FOR AND ATTEND PRELIMI-

NARY INJUNCTION HEARING; CONFER.

ENCE WITH DR. FRANK REED AND ERNIE

DAGUE, JR. REGARDING WITNESS TESTI-

MONY; DRAFT STIPULATED DAGUE GAS

TEST RESULTS; EDIT PROPOSED FINDINGS

OF FACT; LIST NEW GOODKIND@®MOREAU

EXHIBITS; OUTLINE AREAS OF EXAMINA.

TION; LIST CHEMICALS FOUND IN WATER;

LIST ATTACHMENTS TO FINDINGS; REVIEW

GOODKIND®OGDEN FILES AND COPY DOC.

UMENTS FROM SAME.

12-11-85 wwpe 9.50 807.50

PREPARATION FOR AND ATTEND PRELIMI-

NARY INJUNCTION HEARING; PREPARE FOR

TOMORROW'S HEARING.

12-11-85 RBL 0.50 30.00

LEGAL RESEARCH REGARDING AUTHORITY

OF MAGISTRATE.

12-11-85 RNB 5.20 234.00

REVIEW GOODKIND DEPOSITION EXHIBITS

CONCERNING MIGRATION OF METHANE

FROM THE LANDFILL FOR USE AT THE

HEARING; ATTEND SAME.

12-11-85 = MIC 6.50 260.00

PREPARATION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNC.

TION HEARING; ATTEND SAME AND TAKE

NOTES.

12-12-85 = WWP 9.00 765.00

PREPARATION FOR AND ATTEND HEARING:

PREPARE FOR TOMORROW'S HEARING.

12-12-85 RNB 7.40 333.00

DRAFT PRELIMINARY STATEMENT AND

FIRST ARGUMENT OF DISCUSSION IN SUP.

PLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT

OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY

INJUNCTION; PREPARE FOR CROSS-EXAM.

INATION AND RE-DIRECT EXAMINATION

OF DR. FRANK REED.

12-12-85 = MYC 6.50 260.00

ATTENDANCE AND NOTETAKING AT PRE-

LIMINARY INJUNCTION HEARING.

12-12-85 GLH 1.00 35.00

LEGAL RESEARCH REGARDING PROCEDURE

FOR NOTICING DEPOSITIONS OF OUT-OF.

STATE WITNESSES.

12-13-85 = WwWP 9.00 765.00

PREPARATION FOR AND ATTEND HEARING.

12-13-85 = RNB 7.50 337.50

DRAFT PART OF SECOND ARGUMENT OF

DISCUSSION IN SUPPLEMENTAL MEM.

ORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’

MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION,

CONFERENCE WITH ATTORNEY PEARSON

REGARDING TESTIMONY GIVEN AT HEAR.

12-13-85 MjC 6.50 260.00

ATTEND AND NOTETAKING AT PRELIMI-

NARY INJUNCTION HEARING.

12-13-85 GLH 6.00 210.00

ASSIST IN TRANSPORTING FILES TO US.

DISTRICT COURT FOR HEARING; TELE-

PHONE CONFERENCES WITH MR. DOWD.

ELL, MR. CHAPPLE, MR. RATHE AND

CONTACT VICON REGARDING CURRENT

INTEREST IN ACCEPTING WASTE MATE-

RIALS FROM THE CITY OF BURLINGTON,

THE TIME NECESSARY TO ESTABLISH AND

PUT INTO OPERATION A SYSTEM TO HAN-

DLE THE WASTE MATERIALS AND THE

WASTE MANAGEMENT PRACTICES OF THE

BURLINGTON LANDFILL.

12-14-85 RNB 3.70 166.50

CONTINUE DRAFTING SECOND ARGUMENT

OF DISCUSSION IN SUPPLEMENTAL MEM.-

ORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’

MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION.

12-15-85 wwp 11.00 935.00

PREPARATION FOR TOMORROW'S HEAR.

INC, EDIT PROPOSED FINDINGS AND MEM.

ORANDUM; PREPARATION FOR

EXAMINATIONS OF COUNTRYMAN AND

STATE OFFICIAL; TELEPHONE CONFERENCE

WITH MR. LASH.

12-15-85 RNB 13.20 594.00

REVISE SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM IN

SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PRE-

LIMINARY INJUNCTION.

12-16-85 wwpe 9.00 765.00

PREPARATION FOR AND ATTEND HEARING.

12-16-85 = RNB 8.50 382.50

FINISH DRAFTING SECOND ARGUMENT

ND DRAFT FOURTH ARGUMENT OF Dis.

CUSSION IN SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORAN.

DUM IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION

CONDUCTED ON ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT.

AND EXAMINATIONS OF STATE OFFICIA

AND COUNTRYMAN. =

12-16-85 = MJC 8.00 320.00

ATTEND AND NOTETAKING AT PRELIMI.

NARY INJUNCTION HEARING.

12-17-65 = WWP 5.60 476.00

ORGANIZE FILES FROM HEARING; OUTLINE

MEMORANDUM, ADDITIONAL PROPOSED

12-17-85 RNB 6.10 274.50

LEGAL RESEARCH ON “SUBSTANTIAL AND

IMMINENT” ENDANGERMENT STANDARD

PART OF ARUGMENT [sic] Ill IN DISCUSSIO!

SECTION OF SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORAN.

DUM IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION

FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

12-17-85 = MJC 2.00 80.00

SITE INSPECTION OF BURLINGTON LAND.

FILL; REPORT TO ATTORNEY PEARSON

REGARDING SAME; TELEPHONE CONFER-

ENCE WITH CARL PAGEL REGARDING PRE-

TREATMENT OF LEACHATE; ORGANIZE

WORK TO BE DONE; PLAN FURTHER INVES-

TIGATION.

12-18-85 wwp 7.50 637.50

EDIT FURTHER DRAFTS OF MEMORANDUM.

12-18-85 MJC 5.60 224.00

TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH ATTOR-

NEY CLAPP REGARDING COPY OF STATE

LAWSUIT AGAINST CITY; REVIEW NEWS

REPORTS REGARDING PRELIMINARY

INJUNCTION HEARING; TELEPHONE CON-

FERENCE WITH FEDERAL COURT REGARD-

ING TRANSCRIPT OF GOODKIND

TESTIMONY FROM HEARING; REVIEW

GOODKIND NOTES IN HIS FILE, LIST

EXHIBITS TO HEARING AND DEPOSITIONS,

TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH ATTOR-

NEYS FOR HAZARDOUS WASTE GENERA-

TORS REGARDING SIGNING OF DEPOSITION

TRANSCRIPTS; TRIP TO FEDERAL COURT TO

PICK UP TAPE OF GOODKIND TESTIMONY.

12-19-85 wwp 8.00 680.00

FINISH REVISING FIRST SECTION OF MEM-

ORANDUM, PROPOSED FINDINGS AND

CONCLUSIONS.

12-19-85 RNB 10.60 477.00

REVISE SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM IN

SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PRE-

LIMINARY INJUNCTION; REVISE PROPOSED

FINDINGS OF FACT.

21968 MjC 7.10 284.00

/ANIZE FILE; COPY EXHIBITS FOR FILING

—_—_—— . - d a G

WITH COURT; INDEX EXHIBITS; PREPARA.

TION FOR FILINGS OF PROPOSED FINDINGS

AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW.

12-19-85 GLH 1.30

OBTAIN MR. DILL’S SIGNATURE TO DEPOSI.

- * ._ _ E a

TION; PICK UP CASSETTE TAPE WITH TESTI.

MONY AT U.S. DISTRICT COURT

12-20-85 §§ WWP 3.80

35 v 3. 323.00

TOUR LANDFILL; FILE SUPPLEMENTA

OUR LANDFILL; ENTAL

MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PLAIN.

TIFFS’ MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNC.

TION.

12-20-85 = RNB 8.40 :

= RNB. 378.00

DRAFT THIRD ARGUMENT OF DISCUSSIC

) aD USSION

IN SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM IN SUP.

PORT OF PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION;

REVIEW SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM

IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION; DRAFT PRO.

POSED CONCLUSIONS OF LAW.

12-20-85 MJC 7.10 :

7 7. 284.00

LANDFILL INSPECTION WITH ATTORNE

AND ! RNEY

PEARSON, OPPOSING COUNSEL AND MAG-

ISTRATE; PREPARATION FOR FILING PRO.

POSED FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS,

RANGE OPYING; ORGANIZE DOCU.

MENTS FOR FILING. aaa

12-27-85 = WWP 6.50 :

TELEPHONE CONFERENCES WITH MR

CLAPP; TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH

MR. FRANCO; PICK UP CITY'S COUNTER.

CLAIM; READ SAME; REVIEW CITY’S MEM.

ORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFE’S

SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM; REVIEW

CASES CITED BY CITY; REVIEW GOODKIND

AND OGDEN DOCUMENTS.

12-30-85 wwpe 5.20 442.00

RESEARCH PART 257 OF RCRA REGULA-

TIONS AS APPLICABILE [sic] TO CITY’S

REPLY MEMORANDUM; DETAILED REVIEW

AND ANALYSIS OF CITY’S MEMORANDUM.

12-31-85 wwp 2.80 238.00

TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH MR.

OGDEN; TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH

MR. GOODKIND; DELIVERY OF BOXES TO

MR. CLAPP’S OFFICE; TELEPHONE CONFER-

ENCE WITH MR. CLAPP’S OFFICE; TELE-

PHONE CONFERENCE WITH COURT.

01-02-86 wwe 4.80 408.00

OUTLINE REPLY BRIEF; UPDATE FILE SYS-

TEM; TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH

COURT; TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH

MR. CLAPP’S OFFICE; TELEPHONE CONFER-

ENCE WITH MS. HACKBARTH; TELEPHONE

CONFERENCE WITH MR. MALTER’S OFFICE.

02- RNB 8.30 373.50

a REVIEW STATUS OF CASE IN PREPARATION

FOR DRAFTING REPLY MEMORANDUM;

BEGIN DRAFTING FIRST ARGUMENT OF

REPLY MEMORANDUM.

02-86 MIC 5.80 232.00

ae ANALYZE ARGUMENTS OPPOSING DEFEN-

DANT’S MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO

MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION;

ORGANIZE FILE.

01-03-86 = WWP 4.00 340.00

TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH MS.

HACKBARTH; TELEPHONE CONFERENCE

WITH MR. MALTER; TELEPHONE CONFER-

ENCE WITH MS. WRIGHT; ANALYZE REPLY

MEMORANDUM; RESEARCH CITY’S PRELIM-

INARY INJUNCTION AUTHORITY.

01-03-86 RNB 8.80 396.00

ANALYZE SECOND AND THIRD ARGU-

MENTS OF PLAINTIFFS’ REPLY MEMORAN-

DUM; DRAFT SECOND ARGUMENT AND

BEGIN DRAFTING THIRD ARGUMENT OF

PLAINTIFFS’ REPLY MEMORANDUM.

01-03-86 MJC 1.00 40.00

ANALYZE STATE ACTION IN REVIEWING

NEED FOR PRE-TREATMENT OF LEACHATE

AND OBTAIN STATE RESEARCH ON LEACH-

ATE QUALITY; TELEPHONE CONFERENCE

WITH BILL AHEARN AND MEREDITH

WRIGHT REGARDING SAME; TELEPHONE

CONFERENCE WITH ERNIE DAGUE, JR.

REGARDING TEST RESULTS AND HIS

REQUEST FOR GAS TEST SCHEDULE.

01-04-86 MJC 1.20 48.00

REVIEW FILE AND TABULATE ALL GAS

WELL TEST RESULTS FROM OUTSIDE DAGUE

PROPERTY; MEMORANDUM REGARDING

SAME; REVIEW WATER TEST FILE FOR

GOUNDWATER CONTAMINANTS IN EXCESS

OF 40 CFR SECTION 257, APPENDIX I CHEMI-

CALS.

01-05-86 RNB 4.30 193.50

FINISH DRAFT OF THIRD ARGUMENT AND

DRAFT FOURTH ARGUMENT OF PLAIN-

TIFFS’ REPLY MEMORANDUM.

01-06-86 WwWP 6.00 510.00

DRAFT AND EDIT REPLY MEMORANDUM;

ANALYZE CITY’S OBJECTIONS TO PRO-

POSED FACTS; TELEPHONE CONFERENCE

84 85

WITH MS. WRIGHT; TELEPHONE CONFER- SOURCE OF

ENCES WITH AEC; TELEPHONE CONFER- MEMORANDUM Ivy a pees

ENCE WITH COURT. DANT’S OBJECTIONS TO PROPOSED FACTS.

01-06-86 RNB 0.70 31.50 REVIEW WATER TEST RESULTS FOR APPEN.

CONFERENCE WITH WILLIAM AHERN OF DIX I CHEMICALS; TELEPHONE CONFER.

THE VERMONT AGENCY OF ENVIRONMEN- ENCE WITH ERNIE DAGUE, JR. REGARDING

TAL CONSERVATION REGARDING HIS LET- LATEST GAS READINGS ON CLIENTS’ PROP.

TER TO MR. CROMBIE AND TEST RESULTS ERTY; REVIEW TAPE OF 3-18-85 ALDERMEN’S

ON LEACHATE. MEETING FOR REFERENCES TO LANDFILL.

01-06-86 MJC 4.80 192.00 01-08-86 WWP 1.00 85.00

SEND OUT BILLS FOR COPYING; ANALYZE ANALYZE LEGAL RESEARCH AND GAS _

PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT’S INVESTIGATION FOR FRIDAY’S HEARING

OBJECTIONS TO PROPOSED FACTS; REVIEW 01-08-86 MIC |

DEFENDANT’S REQUEST TO ADMIT; TELE- Ooseranent 1.70 68.00

PHONE CONFERENCE WITH ERNIE DAGUE, REC Pt ey WITH ATTORNEY PEARSON

JR. REGARDING TIME-DATE OF FINAL CURRENT & STATUS OF INVESTIGATION ON

HEARING; REVIEW DEFENDANT'S OBJEC- aban FFORTS BY CITY TO CONTROL

TIONS TO PROPOSED FACTS; DRAFT MEM- FILL GAS; DELIVER REPLY MEMORAN.

DUM TO COURT AND ATTORNEY CLAPP;

ORANDUM REBUTTING OBJECTIONS.

SITE VISIT TO CLIENTS’ PROPERTY TO VIEW

01-07-86 | WWP 7.00 595.00 EFFECTS

DRAFT AND EDIT REPLY MEMORANDUM; NIZE FILE 8S CONTROL SYSTEM; ORGA-

RESEARCH; FILE MEMORANDUM.

01-07-86 RNB 2.30 103.50 » PRmPaRAnoe FOR TON —

LEGAL RESEARCH ON US. V. RIVERSIDE ING; REVIEW HEINDEL AND Comverse aS

BAYVIEW HOMES, INC. AND WEINBERGER DEPOSITION REPORTS. SYMAN

V. ROMERO-BARCELO; REVIEW THIRD- :

PARTY COMPLAINT; REVIEW DEFENDANT'S 01-09-86 MIC 4.30 —

OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS’ PROPOSED TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH VT. GAS

FINDINGS OF FACT, DEFENDANT'S TO BORROW GAS METER; GET SAME FROM

REQUESTS TO ADMIT AND DEFENDANT'S VGS; TEST GAS AT DAGUES AND BESSETTES-

PROPOSED CONCLUSIONS OF LAW; REVIEW RETURN METER; REPORT TO ATTORNEY

AND ANALYZE PLAINTIFFS’ REPLY MEM- PEARSON REGARDING RESULTS OF GAS

ORANDUM. TESTS.

01-07-86 MIC 3.20 128.00 01-10-86 = WWP 6.50

REVIEW MOREAU AND GOODKIND DEPOSI- PREPARATION FOR AND ATTEND PRELIM)

TIONS REGARDING GAS MIGRATION AND NARY INJUNCTION HEARING

01-10-86 RNB 8.00 360.00

DRAFT MEMORANDUM ON SYNOPSIS OF

ARGUMENTS AND SUPPORTING CASELAW

IN PREPARATION FOR HEARING FOR PRE-

LIMINARY INJUNCTION; CONFERENCE

WITH ATTORNEY PEARSON IN PREPARA-

TION FOR HEARING; ATTEND HEARING.

01-10-86 MJC 4.30 172.00

SEARCH FILE FOR INFORMATION ON LAND-

FILL POINT SOURCES FOR ALLEGATIONS OF

CLEAN WATER ACT VIOLATION; SITE VISIT

TO BURLINGTON LANDFILL WITH PHOTOS

OF NEW GAS VENTING SYSTEM; CONFER-

ENCE WITH ATTORNEY PEARSON REGARD-

ING SAME; ATTEND FINAL HEARING ON

MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION.

01-13-86 WwWP 1.00 85.00

REORGANIZE MATERIALS FROM HEARING;

REVIEW NEW HEARING EXHIBITS FILE.

01-13-86 MJC 1.20 48.00

FACT RESEARCH AT CITY HALL REGARD-

ING ALDERMANIC RESOLUTION TO FUND

LANDFILL CLEANUP; DRAFT LETTER TO

COURT AND ATTORNEY CLAPP REGARDING

FILING OF ORIGINAL HEARING EXHIBITS

FROM JANUARY 10 HEARING.

01-20-86 MJC 0.60 24.00

DRAFT AND REVIEW OUTLINE OF FACTS

PROPOSED AND NOT OBJECTED TO BY CITY.

01-27-86 WwWP 1.80 153.00

REVIEW PROPOSED FACT COMPARISONS;

REVIEW MOTION TO COMPEL.

01-31-86 WwWP 0.50 42.50

REVIEW FINDINGS OF FACT; PLAN ADDI-

TIONAL DISCOVERY.

01-31-86 MJC 1.80 72.00

TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH ERNIE

DAGUE, JR. REGARDING TRESPASS ON HIS

PROPERTY BY CITY.

02-03-86 WwwpP 0.60 51.00

PLAN FURTHER DISCOVERY; TELEPHONE

CONFERENCE WITH COURT.

02-10-86 MJC 1.00 40.00

REVIEW STATUS OF CASE; ORGANIZE FILE.

02-11-86 RNB 0.40 18.00

TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH PETER

SHELLEY OF THE CONSERVATION LAW

FOUNDATION IN BOSTON, MASSA-

CHUSETTS TO DISCUSS THE STATUS OF THE

CASE.

02-21-86 WWP 1.00 85.00

TWO TELEPHONE CONFERENCES WITH

ATTORNEY BLAND ABOUT MAGISTRATE’S

DECISION.

02-21-86 RNB 3.30 148.50

THOROUGH REVIEW AND ANALYSIS OF

MAGISTRATE’S REPORT AND RECOMMEN-

DATION; PREPARATION FOR FILING OBJEC-

TIONS THERETO; RESPOND TO MEDIA

INQUIRIES REGARDING PLAINTIFFS’ REAC-

TION TO MAGISTRATE’S REPORT AND REC-

OMMENDATION; TELEPHONE CONFERENCE

WITH ERNIE DAGUE, JR. TO CONVEY AND

DISCUSS MAGISTRATE’S DECISION; OUT-

LINE GROUNDS FOR FILING OBJECTIONS TO

MAGISTRATE’S REPORT AND RECOMMEN.-

DATION.

02-21-86 MJC 3.00 120.00

TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH COURT

REGARDING DECISION BY MAGISTRATE;

REVIEW DECISION; TELEPHONE CONFER-

ENCE WITH CLIENT REGARDING SAME.

02-22-86 WWP 0.50 42.50

TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH ATTOR-

NEY BLAND ABOUT OBJECTIONS TO MAGIS-

TRATE’S DECISION.

02-23-86 RNB 2.30 103.50

INITIAL DRAFT OF PLAINTIFFS’ CBJECTIONS

TO MAGISTRATE’. REPORT AND RECOM-

MENDATION.

02-24-86 WwWP 1.50 127.50

REVIEW DECISION AND ANALYZE FIND-

INGS OF FACT.

02-24-86 RNB 0.60 27.00

CONFERENCE WITH ATTORNEY PEARSON

TO DISCUSS MAGISTRATE’S REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION AND PLAINTIFFS’

OBJECTIONS THERETO.

02-24-86 MJC 2.00 80.00

PLAN FURTHER WORK TO BE DONE IN CASE

AND DIVISION OF LABOR.

02-25-86 WWP 1.50 127.50

ANALYZE FINDINGS OF FACT AND OUT-

LINE OBJECTIONS TO MAGISTRATE’S DECI-

SION.

02-26-86 wwpP 1.00 85.00

FURTHER REVIEW FINDINGS OF FACT COM-

PARISON.

02-27-86 wwe 1.50 127.50

DRAFT AND EDIT OUTLINE FOR OBJEC-

TIONS TO MAGISTRATE’S DECISION.

02-27-86 RNB 8.30 373.50

ANALYZE PLAINTIFFS’ OBJECTIONS TO

MAGISTRATE’S REPORT AND RECOMMEN-

DATION; LEGAL RESEARCH ON RCRA’S PRE-

EMPTION OF STATE REGULATION OF

HAZARDOUS WASTE AND RETENTION OF

STATE AUTHORITY; INITIAL DRAFT OF FIRST

ARGUMENT REGARDING THE LANDFILL

DISPOSAL OF HAZARDOUS WASTES IN VIO-

LATION OF RCRA’S HAZARDOUS WASTE

PERMIT AND NOTIFICATION REQUIRE-

MENTS.

02-27-86 MJC 2.50 100.00

DRAFT INTERROGATORIES TO CITY.

02-28-86 WWP 1.00 85.00

SEVERAL TELEPHONE CONFERENCES WITH

MR. BLAND ABOUT OBJECTIONS TO MAGIS-

TRATE’S DECISION.

02-28-86 RNB 7.50 337.50

REVISE FIRST ARGUMENT IN PLAINTIFFS’

OBJECTIONS TO MAGISTRATE’S REPORT

AND RECOMMENDATION AND INITIAL

DRAFT OF SECOND AND THIRD ARGU-

MENTS REGARDING THE LANDFILL ITSELF

AS A POINT SOURCE AND THE MAGIS-

TRATE’S ORDER AS INCOMMENSURATE

WITH THE LANDFILL’S VIOLATIONS OF

RCRA AND THE CWA; REVIEW PLAINTIFFS’

SECOND SET OF INTERROGATORIES.

02-28-86 MJC 2.00 80.00

REVIEW AND REVISE INTERROGATORIES TO

CITY; DRAFT REQUESTS TO PRODUCE.

03-01-86 wwpe 4.50 382.50

ORGANIZE AND DRAFT OBJECTIONS TO

MAGISTRATE’S RULING.

03-02-86 = WWP 8.00 | 680.00

EDIT, DRAFT, AND RESEARCH OBJECTIONS

TO MAGISTRATE’S DECISION; OUTLINE

CHRONOLOGY AND SPECIFIC OBJECTIONS.

03-02-86 RNB 8.80 396.00

WORK ON INITIAL DRAFTS OF FOURTH

AND FIFTH ARGUMENTS TO PLAINTIFFS’

OBJECTIONS TO MAGISTRATE’S REPORT

AND RECOMMENDATION REGARDING THE

LANDFILL AS AN OPEN DUMP AND

ENGAGING IN OPEN DUMPING PRACTICES

IN VIOLATION OF RCRA’S PROHIBITION ON

OPEN DUMPING AND THE SUBSTANTIAL

AND IMMINENT ENDANGERMENT PRE-

SENTED BY THE LANDFILL TO THE ENVI-

RONMENT; EDIT DRAFT OF PLAINTIFFS’

OBJECTIONS TO MAGISTRATE’S REPORT

AND RECOMMENDATION.

03-03-86 = WWP 3.50 297 50

ANALYZE OBJECTIONS, EDIT FINAL DRAFT

OF OBJECTIONS TO MAGISTRATE’S DECI-

SION; REVIEW AND ANALYZE CHRONOL:

OGY.

03-03-86 GSC 0.50 30.00

ANALYZE PROPOSED ORDER; LOCATE

MODEL CONSENT DECREE,

03-03-86 RNB 11.90 535.50

DRAFT ADDITIONAL RECOMMENDATA-

TIONS [sie] TO BE INCLUDED IN THE PRO:

POSED COURT ORDER; EDIT PLAINTIFFS’

OBJECTIONS TO MAGISTRATE’S REPORT

AND RECOMMENDATION; EDIT PLAIN:

TIFFS’ OJBECTIONS [sie] TO MAGISTRATE’S

FINDINGS OF FACT; ASSIST IN DRAFTING

THE CHRONOLOGY OF OPERATIONS AND

REGULATIONS PERTAINING TO THE LAND-

FILL.

03-03-86 = JHT 6.80 306.00

CONFERENCE WITH ATTORNEY BLAND

REGARDING PREPARATION OF CHRONOL.-

OGY BASED ON FINDINGS OF FACT OF

MAGISTRATE; REVIEW FINDINGS AND

DEVELOPMENT OF CHRONOLOGIC STRUC.

TURE; CREATE “TIME LINE” BASED ON THE

FINDINGS OF FACT; DRAFT COMPUTER-

ASSISTED GRAPHIC PRESENTATION,

REVIEW AND ANALYSIS OF SAME.

03-03-86 MjC 7.00 280.00

ASSIST IN DRAFTING AND REVISING OBJEC-

TIONS TO MAGISTRATE’S RECOMMENDA-

TIONS; ASSIST IN PREPARATION AND

FILING OF LEGAL AND FACTUAL ARGU-

MENTS REGARDING SAME; ASSIST IN

DRAFTING TIME LINE OF EVENTS FROM

MAGISTRATE’S FINDINGS; REVIEW SUPPOR-

TING FILE DOCUMENTS.

03-04-86 wwpP 2.50 212.50

READ AND ANALYZE CITY'S AND GE'S

OBJECTIONS TO MAGISTRATE’S RULING;

OBTAIN AND READ TEXAS CASE ON BIND:

ING EFFECT OF MAGISTRATE’S OR JUDGE'S

FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF

patted REVIEW OUTLINE OF PROPOSED

RDER.

03-04-86 JHT 4.80 216.00

REVISE CHRONOLOGY BASED ON MAGIS-

TRATE’S FINDINGS OF FACT; EXTENSIVE

REVISIONS OF CHRONOLOGY TO DETAIL

YEARS OF HAZARDOUS WASTES DUMPING

BY GENERATORS; REVIEW FINAL VERSION

OF CHRONOLOGY

03-04-86 MIC 5.00 | 200.00

FURTHER WORK ON DRAFTING OBJEC-

TIONS TO MAGISTRATE’S DECISION; PROOF-

READ CHRONOLOGY FOR FILING WITH

COURT; REVIEW OBJECTIONS TO MAGIS-

TRATE’S RECOMMENDATIONS FILED BY G.E.

AND CITY; DRAFT MEMORANDUM ANALYZ-

ING CITY’S OBJECTIONS.

03-05-86 wwpe 2.20 187.00

REVISE PROPOSED ORDER.

03-05-86 RNB 5.80 261.00

THOROUGH REVIEW OF CITY’S AND THIRD-

PARTY DEFENDANT GENERAL ELECTRIC

COMPANY, INC.’S OBJECTIONS TO THE

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE

MAGISTRATE; DRAFT PROPOSED ORDER

FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION.

03-05-86 MjC 1.50 60.00

REVISE MEMORANDUM REGARDING CITY'S

OBJECTIONS TO MAGISTRATE’S RECOM-

MENDATIONS; RESEARCH OF GOODKIND’S

TESTIMONY ON LANDFILL GAS GENERA-

TION AND MIGRATION.

03-07-86 MjC 1.00 40.00

ORGANIZE FILE; REVIEW LATEST PLEAD-

INGS.

03-09-86 wwpe 0.40 34.00

READ HAGAR HARDWARE OBJECTIONS TO

MAGISTRATE’S RULING.

03-10-86 wwp 0.60 51.00

TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH MS.

SHEEHAN; REVIEW INTERROGATORIES.

03-10-86 MjC 3.00 120.00

PLAN FURTHER FACT INVESTIGATION AND

PREPARATION FOR ARGUMENT OVER GAS

TESTIMONY; REVIEW FILE FOR WATER TEST

RESULTS; TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH

MEREDITH WRIGHT REGARDING LEACH-

ATE COLLECTED; REVIEW NEW INTER-

ROGATORIES AND REQUESTS TO PRODUCE;

COMPARE TO PREVIOUSLY FILED SET FOR

COMPLETENESS.

03-11-86 wwrp 0.30 25.50

REVIEW ATTORNEY MORGAN’S OBJECTIONS

TO MAGISTRATE’S REPORT.

03-11-86 MjC 0.50 20.00

TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH MER-

EDITH WRIGHT REGARDING STATUS OF

STATE REVIEW OF LEACHATE COLLECTION;

REVIEW INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS

TO PRODUCE TO BE PILED.

03-12-86 MjC 1.20 48.00

REVISE INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS

TO PRODUCE; ATTEMPTS TO CONTACT

BRIAN QUAKER AT AEC.

03-13-86 wwpe 0.30 25.50

TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH CLIENTS.

03-13-86 MJC 1.20 48.00

ORGANIZE FILE; TELEPHONE CONFERENCE

WITH BRIAN QUAKER REGARDING STATUS

OF LEACHATE PRE-TREATMENT REGULA-

TION.

03-17-86 Mjc 0.20 8.00

TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH CLIENT

REGARDING PHOTOGRAPHING OF CLI-

ENTS’ HOUSE.

03-24-86 wwpe 0.50 42.50

REVIEW MOTION TO AMEND; TELEPHONE

CONFERENCE WITH COURT; REVIEW INTER-

ROGATORIES.

03-24-86 MJC 0.30 12.00

TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH CLIENT

REGARDING EXCESSIVE TRASH IN YARD

FROM LANDFILL; PLAN FURTHER WORK TO

BE DONE.

(3-26-86 MjC 0.40 16.00

TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH CLIENT

REGARDING CURRENT GAS READINGS AND

STATUS OF CITY’S RETURN OF GAS METER.

03-27-86 RNB 2.30 103.50

THOROUGH REVIEW AND ANALYSIS OF

JUDGE BILLINGS’ OPINION; TELEPHONE

CONFERENCE WITH ATTORNEY PEARSON

TO DISCUSS JUDGE BILLINGS’ OPINION

AND GROUNDS FOR AN APPEAL THERE-

FROM; LEGAL RESEARCH ON PROCEDURES

FOR THE WITHDRAWAL OF EPA AUTHORI-

ZATION OF A STATE HAZARDOUS WASTE

PROGRAM UNDER RCRA AND THE REGULA-

TIONS PROMULGATED THEREUNDER;

LEGAL RESEARCH ON RULES OF APPELATE

[sic] PROCEDURE FOR APPEALING AN

ORDER OF THE U.S. DISTRICT COURT.

(3-27-86 MJC 0.60 24.00

INTRAOFFICE CONFERENCE REGARDING

COURT'S DENIAL OF MOTION FOR PRELIMI-

NARY INJUNCTION; REVIEW AND ANALYZE

COURT ORDER.

03-31-86 MJC 1.00 40.00

SEARCH FOR LANDFILL LEACHATE EXPERT

04-02-86 MIC 0.50 20.00

CONTINUE SEARCH FOR EXPERTS ON

LANDFILL LEACHATE; PLAN FOR FURTHER

EXPERT RESEARCH ON EFFECTS OF LAND:

FILL LEACHATE ON PLANTS.

04-04-86 wwp 1.50 127.50

REVIEW AND ANALYZE JUDGE BILLINGS’

DECISION AND APPEAL OPTIONS.

04-04-86 RNB 2.40 108.00

FURTHER ANALYSIS OF JUDGE BILLINGS’

OPINION AND ARGUMENTS TO BE MADE

ON APPEAL; DRAFT OUTLINE OF HAZARD.

OUS WASTE PERMIT ARGUMENTS TO BE

MADE ON APPEAL.

(4-04-86 MJC 0.30 12.00

REVIEW NEWS REGARDING CITY’S SOLU-

TION TO FUNDING OF DUMP CLOSING;

COPY SAME.

04-07-86 wwr 3.00 255.00

OUTLINE AND EVALUATE GROUNDS FOR

APPEAL; TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH

COURT.

04-07-86 MjC 1.50 60.00

REVIEW STATUS OF LEACHATE COLLEC-

TION AND DISPOSAL; TELEPHONE CONFER-

ENCE WITH ASSISTANT ATTORNEY

GENERAL WRIGHT REGARDING RELEASE

OF STATE DOCUMENTS ON LEACHATE;

TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH AND LET-

TER TO WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT

REGARDING SAME.

(4-08-86 MJC 0.80 32.00

REVIEW AND REVISE INFORMATION

REQUEST LETTER TO VAEC; REVIEW FILE IN

PREPARATION FOR FURTHER FACT

RESEARCH.

04-09-86 RNB 2.30 103.50

PLAN FURTHER DISCOVERY; REVIEW LEGIS-

LATIVE HISTORY ON BILL TO PROTECT WET-

LANDS AND ON VERMONT’S GROUND-

WATER PROTECTION LAW.

04-09-86 MJC 0.50 20.00

PLAN FURTHER INVESTIGATION AND DIS-

COVERY.

04-11-86 wwp 0.30 25.50

STATUS CONFERENCE.

04-11-86 RNB 0.40 18.00

REVIEW INFORMATION PROVIDED BY GARY

SHULTZ OF THE VERMONT AEC, ON THE

BURLINGTON LANDFILL LEACHATE.

04-15-86 RNB 1.30 58.50

FURTHER ANALYSIS OF STANDARDS FOR

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION, STANDARD OF

REVIEW ON APPEAL, AND ARGUMENTS TO

BE RAISED ON APPEAL.

04-15-86 MJC 2.00 80.00

REVIEW LEACHATE CHEMICAL RESEARCH

FROM STATE; REVIEW FILE AND ACCOUNT

FOR OUT-OF-POCKET EXPENSES; TELE-

PHONE CONFERENCE WITH FEDERAL

COURT REGARDING COSTS OF HEARING

TRANSCRIPTS; TELEPHONE CONFERENCE

WITH ATTORNEY CAIN REGARDING SAME;

MEMORANDUM REGARDING SAME.

04-16-86 MJC 1.30 52.00

REVIEW FILE AND DRAFT MEMORANDUM

ON EXPENSES TO DATE.

04-17-86 MjJC 0.50 20.00

REVIEW FILE FOR COPY OF LATEST DISCOV-

ERY DOCUMENT SENT TO CITY OF BUR-

LINGTON; TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH

— COURT REGARDING DATE OF FIL-

04-18-86 RNB 2.80 126.00

LEGAL RESEARCH ON INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

ry A VIOLATION OF THE CLEAN WATER

04-21-86 RNB 1.60 72.00

ANALYZE ISSUES PROPOSED TO BE RAISED

ON APPEAL AND THE PROCEDURE ON

APPEAL; DRAFT NOTICE OF APPEAL.

04-22-86 WwwpP 2.00 170.00

OUTLINE AND ANALYZE APPEAL ISSUES;

REVIEW EXHIBIT AND TRANSCRIPT

REQUIREMENTS ON APPEAL.

04-22-86 RNB 1.20 54.00

FURTHER ANALYSIS OF ISSUES PROPOSED

TO BE RAISED ON APPEAL; DRAFT PRE-

ARGUMENT STATEMENT.

(4-22-86 MJC 0.40 16.00

TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH FEDERAL

COURT FOR LIST OF EXHIBITS; REVIEW AND

PROOFREAD NOTICE OF APPEAL DOCU-

MENTS.

04-23-86 WwwpP 2.00 170.00

LENGTHY REVIEW OF PROCEDURES FOR

SECOND CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS.

(04-23-86 MJC 0.30 12.00

REVIEW EXHIBIT LIST FROM FEDERAL

COURT; MEMORANDUM TO ATTORNEY

BLAND REGARDING SAME.

(4-24-86 WwwpP 1.00 85.00

ANALYZE POSSIBLE MOTION FOR PARTIAL

SUMMARY JUDGMENT.

04-24-86 RNB 0.80 36.00

ANALYZE PROCEDURE FOR DOCKETING

THE APPEAL; TELEPHONE CONFERENCE

WITH CLERK OF FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT.

04-24-86 MJC 0.40 16.00

PLAN FURTHER INVESTIGATION AND ESTI-

MATE TIME NEEDED TO COMPLETE FACT

INVESTIGATION BEFORE TRIAL.

04-25-86 WwWwP 0.30 25.50

REVIEW CONSENT TO TRIAL BY MAGIS-

TRATE.

04-28-86 RNB 0.50 22.50

REVIEW PROCEDURE FOR ADMISSION TO

PRACTICE BEFORE THE U.S. COURT OF

APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT.

04-29-86 WwwpP 0.30 25.50

REVIEW LETTER FROM MS. SHEEHAN

REGARDING GAS DETECTOR.

04-29-86 RNB 1.30 58.50

FURTHER ANALYSIS OF PROCEDURE ON

APPEAL; DRAFT OUTLINE OF PROCEDURE

AND DEADLINES ON APPEAL.

04-30-86 WwWwPpP 1.00 85.00

FINAL REVIEW OF FORMS C AND D, OTHER

APPEAL PROCEDURES AND PROPER CERTI-

FICATION.

04-30-86 RNB 1.50 67.50

ANALYZE NEED TO FILE DEPOSITIONS OF

THE GENERATORS SO AS TO INCLUDE

THEM WITHIN THE DOCKET ENTRIES;

REVIEW AND ANALYZE FORMS C AND D

AND FURTHER LEGAL RESEARCH ON PRO-

CEDURES ON APPEAL.

04-30-86 MJC 0.60 24.00

SUBMITTAL OF DEPOSITIONS TO FEDERAL

COURT FOR FILING; TELEPHONE CONFER-

ENCE WITH COURT CLERK REGARDING

SAME.

05-01-86 WwWwPpP 0.60 51.00

FINAL APPROVAL OF APPEAL FORMS; SER-

VICE OF SAME.

05-01-86 RNB 0.50 22.50

REVIEW OF PAPERS TO BE FILED IN THE

COURT OF APPEALS AND IN THE US. DIS-

TRICT COURT, AND TO BE SERVED ON THE

OTHER PARTIES.

05-04-86 MJC 0.30 12.00

LETTER TO COURT CLERK REGARDING FIL-

ING OF DEPOSITIONS.

05-05-86 RNB 2.80 126.00

LEGAL RESEARCH UNDER RCRA AND THE

CWA IN PREPARATION FOR DRAFTING

APPELLANTS’ BRIEF.

05-06-86 WwwpP 1.00 85.00

READ SECOND CIRCUIT SCHEDULING CAL-

ENDAR; CONFERENCE WITH MR. CLAPP;

TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH CLIENT.

05-06-86 RNB 5.20 234.00

CONTINUE LEGAL RESEARCH UNDER RCRA

AND THE CWA IN PREPARATION FOR

DRAFTING BRIEF.

05-07-86 wwp 1.00 85.00

REVIEW APPEAL SCHEDULE OF HEARING

DATES AND ISSUES OUTLINE; REVIEW EVI-

DENCE OF TRASH AT DAGUE HOUSE;

REVIEW PHOTOGRAPHS.

100

- RNB 7.30 328.50

a DRAFT LETTERS TO MR. BURBANK AND

ATTORNEY CLAPP REGARDING CONSENT

TO PROCEED BEFORE THE MAGISTRATE;

TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH CLERK OF

THE U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEC-

OND CIRCUIT REGARDING ADMISSION TO

PRACTICE BEFORE THE SECOND CIRCUIT;

CONTINUE LEGAL RESEARCH OF CASELAW

UNDER RCRA AND THE CWA IN PREPARA-

TION FOR DRAFTING THE BRIEF.

42.50

05-08-86 WwwpP 0.50

REVIEW EXHIBIT REQUIREMENTS.

261.00

05-08-86 RNB 5.80

DRAFT FIRST PART OF ARGUMENT I OF

APPELLANTS’ BRIEF.

24.00

05-08-86 MJC 0.60

LETTER TO MS. SHEAHAN REGARDING

REMOVAL OF GAS EQUIPMENT; EVALUATE

TRASH PROBLEM AT LANDFILL.

195.50

05-09-86 WwwpP 2.30

REVIEW OUTLINE FOR BRIEF; LETTER TO

MR. CLAPP REGARDING EXHIBITS.

283.50

05-09-86 RNB 6.30

DRAFT SECOND AND THIRD PARTS OF

ARGUMENT | OF APPELLANTS’ BRIEF.

80.00

05-09-86 MJC 2.00

REVIEW EXHIBITS TO BE FILED WITH

APPEALS COURT; DELIVER NOTICE OF

EXHIBITS DESIGNATED TO ATTORNEY

CLAPP.

148.50

05-11-86 RNB 3.30 ‘

DRAFT ARGUMENT II OF APPELLANTS

BRIEF.

101

05-12-86 RNB 5.50 247.50

THOROUGH ANALYSIS OF WEINBERGER

CASE AND DRAFT ARGUMENT III OF THE

BRIEF.

05-13-86 wwpP 4.50 382.50

PREPARE FOR TOMORROW’S PRE-ARGU-

MENT CONFERENCE.

05-13-86 RNB 5.20 234.00

DRAFT STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND

STATEMENT OF THE FACTS; REVISE ARGU-

MENTS I, II, AND III; PREPARATION FOR

PRE-ARGUMENT CONFERENCE.

05-14-86 wwp 9.00 765.00

PREPARATION FOR AND ATTEND CONFER-

ENCE AT SECOND CIRCUIT COURT OF

APPEALS.

05-14-86 RNB 11.00 495.00

PREPARATION FOR AND ATTEND PRE-

ARGUMENT CONFERENCE AT THE US.

COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIR-

CUIT.

05-15-86 wwp 0.30 25.50

LETTER TO COURT.

05-15-86 RNB 0.30 13.50

TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH CLERK OF

THE U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEC-

OND CIRCUIT REGARDING SCHEDULING OF

ARGUMENT.

05-16-86 wwe 1.00 85.00

REVIEW DOCKET ENTRIES; TELEPHONE

CONFERENCE WITH MR. CLAPP; LETTER TO

COURT.

05-16-86 RNB 1.50 67.50

EXTENDED TELEPHONE CONFERENCE

WITH JOEL BLUMSTEIN, ATTORNEY FOR

102

EPA REGION I, RCRA HAZARDOUS WASTE

DIVISION; EXTENDED TELEPHONE CONFER-

ENCE WITH BRUCE LINNETT, ATTORNEY

FOR ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND,

INC.

05-16-86 MJC 0.70 28.00

ANALYZE EXHIBITS TO BE DESIGNATED ON

APPEAL; DELIVER NOTICE OF SAME TO

OPPOSITE COUNSEL.

05-19-86 RNB 2.80 126.00

COMPILE APPENDIX AND TABLE OF CON-

TENTS OF BRIEF.

05-20-86 WwwpP 5.20 442.00

DRAFT AND EDIT BRIEF; DETAILED ANAL-

YSIS OF NECESSARY REVISIONS TO SAME.

05-20-86 RNB 4.50 202.50

TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH MR.

JARVIS REGARDING DEPOSITIONS OF

THRID-PARTY DEFENDANTS AND PLAIN-

TIFFS’ EXHIBITS; ANALYZE ISSUES IN NEED

OF ADDITIONAL LEGAL RESEARCH AND

ANALYZE ISSUES RAISED ON APPEAL;

ANALYSIS OF CITY OF GALLATIN CASE AND

THE “HAZARDOUS AND SOLID WASTE

AMENDMENTS OF 1984.”

05-21-86 WwwpP 6.50 552.50

DRAFT AND EDIT BRIEF.

05-21-86 RNB 10.80 486.00

FURTHER ANALYSIS OF ISSUES RAISED ON

APPEAL; REVIEW PROCEDURAL REQUIRE-

MENTS FOR BRIEF; REVISE BRIEF.

05-21-86 MJC 2.80 112.00

SEND JUDGE BILLING’S OPINION TO

DR.REED; ASSEMBLE DOCUMENTS FOR

APPENDIX TO APPELLANTS’ BRIEF.

103

05-22-86 Wwwpe 5.00 425.00

FURTHER EDITS TO BRIEF; FURTHER ANAL-

YSIS OF WASTE INDUSTRIES AND OTHER

IMPORTANT CASES; REVIEW CASE CHART.

05-22-86 RNB 8.30 373.50

DRAFT CHART OF CASELAW FOR THE

APPEAL; DRAFT CHECKLIST FOR THE

APPEAL; REVISE BRIEF.

05-22-86 MJC 4.00 160.00

ASSEMBLE AND PAGINATE APPENDIX TO

APPELLANTS’ BRIEF; REVIEW CITATIONS IN

BRIEF FOR APPENDIX.

05-23-86 WWP 7.50 637.50

EXTENSIVE EDIT OF BRIEF; REVIEW FILING

FORM REQUIREMENTS.

05-23-86 RNB 7.30 328.50

FURTHER ANALYSIS AND REVISE BRIEF;

DRAFT CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE.

05-23-86 JHT 2.20 99.00

LEGAL RESEARCH REGARDING SCOPE OF

DISCRETION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF.

05-23-86 MJC 5.00 200.00

PREPARATION FOR APPEAL; FILE ORGANI-

ZATION; SITE INSPECTION AND CONFER-

ENCE WITH CLIENTS REGARDING CITY’S

REQUEST TO CLEAN BANK BESIDE LAND-

FILL; ASSIST IN PREPARING DOCUMENTS

FOR APPEAL.

05-25-86 WwwpP 4.50 382.50

DRAFTING AND EDITING BRIEF

05-26-86 Wwwpe 10.00 850.00

EXTENSIVE DRAFTING AND EDITING OF

BRIEF; ANALYZE JUDICIAL DISCRETION

AND LEGAL RESEARCH ON SAME.

104

05-26-86 MIC 7.70 308.00

PREPARATION POR FILING BRIEF, APPENDIX

AND ADDENDUM WITH COURT OF

APPEALS; PROOFREAD BRIEF; COPY STAT:

UTES FOR ADDENDUM.

05-26-86 DL 7.00 210.00

LEGAL RESEARCH ON STANDARDS FOR

ISSUANCE OF PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

UPON VIOLATION OF FEDERAL ENVIRON-

MENTAL AND OTHER PUBLIC INTEREST

LEGISLATION.

05-27-86 wwrp 2.50 212.50

PREPARE BRIEF FOR FILING WITH COURT OF

APPEALS.

(5-27-86 MIC 6.80 272.00

PREPARE BRIEF, APPENDIX AND ADDEN-

DUM FOR FILING; TELEPHONE CONFER:

ENCE WITH PRINTERS REGARDING SAME;

ORGANIZE AND COMPLETE PRINTING,

PROOFREAD AND REVISE BRIEF; ASSEMBLE

PACKAGES OF DOCUMENTS FOR FILING

AND SERVICE; TELEPHONE CONFERENCE

WITH DON BESSETTE REGARDING CITY'S

REQUEST TO CLEAR BANK; MEMORANDUM

REGARDING SAME.

05-28-86 wwr 0.50 42.50

READ HAGAR’S MOTION TO APPEAR;

REVIEW CITY TRASH CLEAN-UP LETTER.

05-28-86 MIC 4.90 196.00

TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH PRINTER

TO STRAIGHTEN OUT PRINTING BILL;

ORGANIZE FILE FOR USE IN PREPARATION

FOR APPEAL AND TRIAL.

105

05-29-86 wwr 2.50 212.50

READ G.B. MOTION TO DISMISS; PLAN FUR-

THER INVESTIGATION; VISIT TO LANDFILL.

05-29-86 MjC 0.40 16.00

FILE ORGANIZATION.

06-02-86 MJC 0.60 24.00

REVIEW GE MOTION TO DISMISS; ORGA-

NIZE FILE,

06-03-86 wwr 2.80 238.00

REVIEW CITY'S LETTER FOR BANK CLEAN:

UP; REVIEW AND ANALYZE BRIEF WITH

ATTORNEY BLAND; OUTLINE NOTICE

ARGUMENTS; REVIEW G.E. MOTION

06-03-86 RNB 2.80 126.00

PREPARATION FOR ORAL ARGUMENT;

LEGAL RESEARCH ON DISTRICT COURT'S

DISCRETION TO ISSUE AN INJUNCTION

UPON A FINDING OF A STATUTORY VIOLA-

TION.

06-03-86 MIC 1.20 48.00

ANALYZE CITY'S REPLY TO CLEAN DUMP:

BANK; REVIEW STATUS OF POLLUTION

CONTROL SYSTEMS; TELEPHONE CONFER:

ENCE WITH VERMONT WATER RESOURCES

DEPARTMENT REGARDING SAME.

06-04-86 MjC 4.30 172.00

ANALYZE NEW GAS READINGS IN YARD;

TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH BILL

AHEARN REGARDING STATUS OF GAS-

LEACHATE COLLECTION SYSTEMS; SITE

INSPECTION OF SAME; REVIEW DISCOVERY

RESPONSES BY CITY REGARDING DOCU:

MENiS RELATING TO OPERATION OF

LANDFILL; MEMORANDUM TO ATTORNEY

PEARSON REGARDING SAME.

106

06-05-86 MJC 1.60 64.00

DRAFT LETTER TO CITY REGARDING

CLEANUP OF EMBANKMENT.

06-06-86 MJC 1.30 §2.00

REVIEW AND EDIT LETTER TO CITY

REGARDING CLEANUP OF EMBANKMENT.

06-08-86 wwp 2.50 212.50

ANALYZE PROCEDURES; REVIEW NOTICE

DOCUMENTS; OUTLINE ARGUMENT AND

ORGANIZE APPEAL NOTEBOOK.

06-09-86 RNB 2.30 103.50

REVIEW EPA’S NEW REGULATIONS BAN-

NING LAND DISPOSAL OF SPECIFIED HAZ-

ARDOUS WASTES BY NOVEMBER 1986,

TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH DR.

FRANK REED.

06-09-86 MjC 0.80 32.00

ANALYZE STATE POSITION ON “LEAKING”

WASTES; DRAFT LETTER TO CITY REGARD:

ING GAS SYSTEM.

06-10-86 RNB 4.60 207.00

THOROUGH REVIEW OF “AN OVERVIEW OF

HAZARDOUS WASTE REGULATION UNDER

RCRA”; DRAFT MEMORANDUM REGARD-

ING SAME.

06-10-86 = MIC 0.50 20,00

REVISE LETTERS TO CITY REGARDING GAS

COLLECTION AND CLEANUP OF EMBANK:

MENT.

06-11-86 wwr 4.00 340.00

REVIEW AND ANALYZE CITY’S BRIEF; PRE-

PARE NOTEBOOK FOR ARGUMENT.

107

06-11-86 RNB 8.00 360.00

THOROUGH REVIEW AND ANALYSIS OF

CITY’S BRIEF; CONFERENCE WITH ATTOR-

NEY PEARSON TO DISCUSS NOTEBOOK FOR

ORAL ARGUMENT AND TO DISCUSS CITY’S

BRIEF; COMPILE DOCUMENTS FOR NOTE-

BOOK FOR ORAL ARGUMENT; REVIEW AND

ANALYZE MEMORANDUM REGARDING

TRADITIONAL AND SECOND CIRCUIT

STANDARDS FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNC-

TION.

06-11-86 MjC 2.40 96.00

ASSIST IN PREPARING APPEAL NOTEBOOK;

TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH! APPEALS

COURT REGARDING RETURN OF “EXTRA”

COPIES OF APPENDIX; REVIEW CITY’S BRIEF,

ORGNANIZE [sic] FILE.

06-12-86 wwp 2.00 170.00

EDIT LETTER TO CITY; VERIFY DOCUMENTS

TO COURT AND HEARING DATE; REVIEW

FIRST DRAFT OF REPLY BRIEF

06-13-86 wwpP 2.40 204.00

FURTHER ANALYZE CITY’S BRIEF; TELE-

PHONE CONFERENCES WITH MR. SORELL;

PREPARE FOR HEARING; LOCATE DOCU-

MENTS; REVIEW HEARING BINDER; TELE-

PHONE CONFERENCE WITH MR.

WADHAMS.

06-13-86 RNB 4.20 189.00

LEGAL RESEARCH ON ABANDOMENT [sic]

OR WAIVER OF A CLAIM ON APPEAL; COM-

PILE DOCUMENTS FOR NOTEBOOK FOR

ORAL ARGUMENT

108

06-15-86 wwr 3.50 297.50

REVIEW LEGISLATIVE HISTORY FOR 1984

AMENDMENTS; REVIEW AND ANALYZE

BRIEFS.

06-16-86 wwr 1.50 127.50

TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH MR.

DAGUE; EDIT LETTERS; FURTHER ANALYSIS

OF CITY’S BRIEF

06-16-86 RNB 1.50 67 50

CONFERENCE WITH ATTORNEY PEARSON

REGARDING RE-SCHEDULING OF ORAL

ARGUMENT AND DISCUSSION OF “HARZ-

ARDOUS [sic] AND SOLID WASTE AMEND-

MENTS OF 1984”; FURTHER ANALYSIS OF

MEMORANDUM ON STATUTORY INJUNC-

TIONS.

06-16-86 MjC 1.80 72.00

TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH ERNIE

DAGUE, SR. REGARDING LETTER TO CITY

PERMITTING CLEANUP OF EMBANKMENT;

CONFERENCE WITH ERNIE DAGUE, SR.

REGARDING SAME; REVISE LETTER OF

AGREEMENT WITH CITY.

06-17-86 WWP 1.50 «427.50

TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH COURT,

TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH MR.

CLAPP; MOTION AND AFFIDAVIT TO COURT

REGARDING ORAL ARGUMENT DATE.

06-17-86 RNB 1.80 | 81.00

COMPILE RCRA’S CRITERIA FOR CLASSI-

FICATION OF SANITARY LANDFILLS FOR

NOTEBOOK FOR ORAL ARGUMENT.

06-18-86 RNB 0.70 31.50

REVISE REPLY BRIEF

109

06-18-86 MjC 3.30 132.00

CONFERENCE WITH DON BESSETTE

REGARDING SIGNING OF AGREEMENT

WITH CITY TO CLEAN UP BANK; FILE MAIN.

TENANCE; SEND BRIEFS TO CLIENTS; CON.

FERENCE WITH MR. BESSETTE REGARDING

CONSTRUCTION PLAN ON HIS MOTHERS’S

PROPERTY.

06-19-86 wwr 2.40 204.00

REVIEW STATE PLAN AND 1984 RCRA

AMENDMENTS; PREPARE FOR ORAL ARGU-

MENT; REVIEW ARGUMENT NOTEBOOK.

06-19-86 MjC 0.50 20.00

TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH BILL

AHERN AND BOB SIMPSON REGARDING

RELEASE OF CITY MEMORANDUM STATING

COMPLETION OF METHANE GAS AND

LEACHATE SYSTEMS.

06-22-86 RNB 0.80 36.00

DISCUSS REPLY BRIEF WITH ATTORNEY

PEARSON AND PREPARATION FOR TRIAL.

06-22-86 MIC 0.50 20.00

PLAN FOR TRIAL.

06-23-86 = WWP 2.50 212.50

DRAFT REPLY BRIEF

06-23-86 = RNB 3.50 157.50

DRAFT TABLE OF CONTENTS AND TABLE OF

CASES AND STATUTES FOR REPLY BRIEF;

THOROUGH PROOFREAD OF REPLY BRIEF

06-23-86 MIC 3.00 120.00

DRAFT CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND

ENCLOSURE LETTER TO COURT FOR FILING

REPLY BRIEF; PROOFREAD REPLY BRIEF.

ORGANIZE COPYING AND DISTRIBUTION

110

OF REPLY BRIEF; DELIVER TO ATTORNEY

CLAPP; SEND COPIES OF ALL BRIEFS TO CLI-

ENTS.

)6-24-BE RNB 4.90 220.50

7 DRAFT STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND OUT-

LINE OF FIRST ARGUMENT FOR ORAi

ARGUMENT; REVIEW AND ANALYZE

LEACHATE TEST RESULTS.

06-25-86 RNB 5.20 234.00

DRAFT SECOND AND THIRD ARGUMENTS

FOR ORAL ARGUMENT.

06-25-86 MIC 4.20 168.00

ORGANIZE FACT FILE; REVIEW MORBAU

DEPOSITION EXHIBITS; REVIEW AND

ANALYZE WATER TEST RESULTS.

07-03-86 MjC 0.60 24.00

FILE ORGANIZATION AND INDEXING.

07-07-86 MIC 0.30 12.00

LETTER TO COURT REQUESTING ESTIMATE

OF HEARING TRANSCRIPT-TAPE COSTS.

07-08-86 RNB 0.50 42.50

=i REVIEW CITY'S MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSI-

TION TO MOTIONS TO DISMISS AND CITY’S

MOTION TO JOIN ADDITIONAL DEFEN-

DANTS.

07-10-86 RNB 0.30 19.50

TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH ERNIE

DAGUE, JR. REGARDING STATUS OF CASE.

07-10-86 MJC 0.30 12.00

FILE MAINTENANCE,

111

07-17-86 RNB 1.30 84.50

LEGAL RESEARCH ON IMPOSITION OF CIVIL

PENALTIES FOR PAST VIOLATIONS OF THE

CLEAN WATER ACT.

07-22-86 RNB 0.30 19.50

TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH MAGIS-

TRATE’S CLERK REGARDING HEARING ON

THIRD-PARTY DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS.

()7-23-86 WwWwPpP 0.40 40.00

REVIEW OF CASE.

()7-23-86 RNB 0.40 26.00

REVIEW THIRD-PARTY DEFENDANT G.E.’S

SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM IN SUP-

PORT MOTION TO DISMISS.

(7-23-86 DL 4.00 120.00

LEGAL RESEARCH AND MEMORANDUM ON

MANDATORY INJUNCTIONS.

07-24-86 RNB 0.60 39.00

THOROUGH REVIEW AND EDIT OF MEM-

ORANDUM REGARDING MANDATORY

INJUNCTIONS.

07-31-86 RNB 1.50 97.50

PREPARE FOR ORAL ARGUMENT ON

APPEAL; REVIEW THIRD-PARTY DEFEN-

DANT’S MEMORANDU\N: IN OPPOSITION TO

CITY’S MOTION TO JOIN ADDITIONAL

DEFENDANTS.

07-31-86 MJC 2.50 100.00

TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH CLIENT

REGARDING STATUS OF DUMP CLEANUP

AND GAS TESTING.

(8-06-86 RNB 2.40 156.00

FURTHER PREPARATION FOR ORAL ARGU-

MENT; DRAFT LIST OF QUESTIONS LIKELY

112

TO BE RAISED AT ORAL ARGUMENT; TELE-

PHONE CONFERENCE WITH ENVIRONMEN-

TAL TASK FORCE.

08-08-86 wwpP 1.00 100.00

PREPARE FOR ORAL ARGUMENT.

08-10-86 Wwwp 3.60 360.00

PREPARE FOR ORAL ARGUMENT.

08-12-86 WwwpP 3.00 300.00

PREPARE FOR ORAL ARGUMENT.

08-12-86 RNB 6.40 416.00

SITE INVESTIGATION; PREPARATION FOR

ORAL ARGUMENT.

800.00

08-13-86 WwwpP 8.00

PREPARE FOR TOMORROW'S ARGUMENT;

TRAVEL TO NYC.

552.50

08-13-86 RNB 8.50

LEGAL RESEARCH ON NOTICE PROVISIONS

OF RCRA AND THE CWA; PREPARATION FOR

ORAL ARGUMENT.

800.00

08-14-86 Wwwp 8.00

ORAL ARGUMENT AT SECOND CIRCUIT.

520.00

08-14-86 RNB 8.00

FURTHER PREPARATION FOR ORAL ARGUL-

MENT AND ATTEND ORAL ARGUMENT.

150.00

08-18-86 WwWP 1.50

REVIEW SECOND CIRCUIT HEARING AND

REFILE DOCUMENTS; ORGANIZE THIRD

PARTY PARTICIPATION.

19.50

08-18-86 RNB 0.30

TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH ERNIE

DAGUE, JR. REGARDING ORAL ARGUMENT

AT COURT OF APPEALS.

113

08-18-86 MJC 1.50 60.00

FILE MAINTENANCE; ASSEMBLE THIRD.-

PARTY PLEADINGS NOTEBOOK.

08-20-86 Wwwp 1.00 100.00

TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH COURT:

REVIEW AND ANALYZE DECISION OF

COURT OF APPEALS.

08-21-86 WwWwpP 5.00 500.00

ANALYZE ALL OPTIONS FOR APPEAL; TRIAL

PREPARATION; ANALYZE CITY’S COMPLI-

ANCE WITH ORDER.

08-21-86 RNB 1.50 97.50

CONFERENCE WITH ATTORNEY PEARSON

TO DISCUSS DECISION AND POSSIBLE

APPEAL FROM SECOND CIRCUIT; PLAN DIS-

COVERY IN PREPARATION FOR TRIAL.

08-25-86 WwwpP 2.50 250.00

READ THIRD-PARTY PLEADINGS; REVIEW

NOTICE ARGUMENTS.

08-25-86 MJC 1.30 52.00

DRAFT MOTION TO COMPEL TO CITY:

DRAFT WITNESS TESTIMONY LIST; TELE-

PHONE CONFERENCE WITH COURT TO

ORDER TAPES OF OGDEN TESTIMONY.

08-26-86 wwp 2.50 250.00

PREPARE FOR TOMORROW’S HEARING;

ANALYZE NEED FOR ADDITIONAL EXPERTS;

REVIEW DISCOVERY STATUS; OUTLINE PRE-

SENTATION FOR HEARING.

08-26-86 RNB 3.50 227.50

PREPARATION FOR HEARING ON MOTIONS

TO DISMISS THIRD-PARTY COMPLAINT AND

ON MOTION TO JOIN ADDITIONAL PARTY

DEFENDANTS; LEGAL RESEARCH ON JOIN-

DER OF JOINT TORTFEASORS UNDER RCRA.

114

08-27-86 Wwwp 3.00 300.00

ATTEND HEARING; ORGANIZE FURTHER

DISCOVERY.

08-27-86 RNB 3.00 195.00

PREPARATION FOR AND ATTEND HEARING

ON MOTIONS TO DISMISS THIRD-PARTY

COMPLAINT AND MOTION TO JOIN ADDI-

TIONAL PARTY DEFENDANTS.

08-27-86 MJC 2.30 92.00

ORGANIZE FILE; LETTER TO MAGISTRATE;

DRAFT AND EDIT REQUESTS TO ADMIT.

08-28-86 MJC 1.00 40.00

REVISE LETTER TO MAGISTRATE; REVISE

REQUESTS TO ADMIT; REVISE FILE INDEX.

08-29-86 WwwpP 0.60 60.00

ANALYZE TRIAL EXPERTS; STATUS CHECK

ON ADDITIONAL DISCOVERY.

09-02-86 MJC 0.70 28.00

REVIEW FILE; TELEPHONE CONFERENCE

WITH UVM MAP OFFICE FOR EARLY AERIAL

PHOTOS OF LANDFILL.

09-03-86 RNB 1.00 65.00

REVIEW AND EDIT FIRST SET OF REQUESTS

FOR ADMISSION.

09-03-86 MJC 4.20 168.00

FACT RESEARCH ON AVAILABILITY OF

EARLY AERIAL PHOTOS OF LANDFILL; CON-

FERENCE WITH UVM NATURAL

RESOURCES, LIBRARY AND GEOGRAPHY

DEPARTMENTS; LETTER TO ATTORNEY

CLAPP REGARDING DEPOSITION SIGNA-

TURES.

09-04-86 RNB 0.70 45.50

REVIEW AND ANALYSIS OF REQUESTS FOR

ADMISSION.

115

09-05-86 MJC 1.50 60.00

TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH _

NATIONAL ARCHIVES REGARDING PRINTS

OF EARLY LANDFILL PHOTOS; REVISE

REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION TO CITY: DRAFT

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE.

09-08-86 WWP 0.80 80.00

EVIEW AND ANALYZE AERIA |

REVIEW At L PHOTOS OF

09-09-86 MIC 2.00 80.00

DRAFT ADDITIONAL REQUESTS FOR ADM

IS-

SION REGARDING STATE CLAIMS; REVIEW

FILE.

09-10-86 MJC 0.60 24.00

REVISE REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION. :

09-11-86 RNB 1.10 71.50

THOROUGH REVIEW OF PLAINTIFFS’ S

EC-

OND SET OF REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION;

REVIEW AND REVISE PLAINTIFFS’

TO COMPEL. vi ie

09-11-86 MJC 2.00 80.00

AN FOR FURTHER WORK TO BE DONE: |

DRAFT MOTION TO COMPEL TO CITY AND

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE: TELEPHONE

CONFERENCE WITH COURT REGARDING

OGDEN TESTIMONY TAPES.

09-15-86 WWP 0.30 30.00

REVIEW LETTERS FROM ALLAN KEYES. |

09-15-86 RNB 0.50 32.50

LEGAL RESEARCH ON WYCKOFF CO. D

. DECI-

SION WHICH HOLDS THAT STATE HAZARD-

OUS WASTE PROGRAMS DON’T DISPLACE

FEDERAL AUTHORITY.

116

-17- MJC 0.80 32.00

4 TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH BETTY

DAGUE REGARDING QUESTION FROM

LANDFILL OPERATOR; FILE MAINTENANCE;

MEMORANDUM TO ATTORNEY PEARSON

REGARDING RELEASE OF HAGAR LETTER;

TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH DAGUES.

48.00

09-23-86 MJC 1.20

REVIEW FILE; DRAFT AFFIDAVIT IN SUP-

PORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL.

12.00

09-24-86 MJC 0.30

REVISE AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION

TO COMPEL.

09-30-86 WwwpP 2.00 200.00

TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH ERNIE

DAGUE; TRIP TO LANDFILL.

97.50

09-30-86 RNB 1.50

SITE INVESTIGATION OF DAGUE PROPERTY

AND LANDFILL.

09-30-86 MJC 1.50 60.00

TRIP TO LANDFILL.

30.00

10-01-86 WwwpP 0.30

SERVICE AND FILING OF REQUESTS TO

ADMIT.

56.00

10-01-86 MJC 1.40

DRAFT ADDITIONAL REQUESTS TO PRO-

DUCE.

10-03-86 wwp 0.30 30.00

SERVICE AND FILING OF AFFIDAVIT IN SUP-

PORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL.

10-07-86 MjJC 0.60 24.00

ORGANIZE FILE.

117

10-08-86 wwp 0.50 50.00

REVIEW GE’S RESPONSE TO REQUESTS TO

ADMIT.

10-08-86 RNB 0.60 39.00

TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH ERNIE

DAGUE, JR. REGARDING MALFUNCTION OF

METHANE GAS ALARM; LETTER TO ATTOR-

NEY CLAPP REGARDING INSTALLATION OF

A TEMPORARY METHANE GAS ALARM IN

THE DAGUE’S BASEMENT.

10-09-86 wwp 1.00 100.00

ANALYZE OPTIONS IN LIGHT OF CITY’S

FAILURE TO RESPOND TO REQUESTS TO

ADMIT.

10-10-86 wwp 2.70 270.00

ANALYZE CITY’S RESPONSES TO REQUESTS

TO ADMIT AND INTERROGATORIES:

ANALYZE RESPONSE STRATEGY.

10-10-86 RNB 5.50 357.50

THOROUGH REVIEW OF CITY’S RESPONSES

TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST SET OF REQUESTS

FOR ADMISSION; LEGAL RESEARCH ON

F.R.C.P. 36(A); INITIAL DRAFT OF PLAIN.

TIFFS’ MOTION FOR SANCTIONS ON CITY’S

RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION.

10-10-86 MJC 2.40 96.00

EXAMINE EARLY AERIAL PHOTOS:

ANALYZE CITY’S RESPONSES TO INTER-

ROGATORIES, REQUESTS TO PRODUCE, AND

REQUESTS TO ADMIT; ANALYZE SETTLE-

MENT POSSIBILITIES; FILE AND SERVE

MOTION TO STRIKE.

118

10-13-86 WWP 3.20 320.00

REVIEW RESPONSE TO CITY’S INSUFFICIENT

ANSWERS; EDIT LETTER; EXAMINE DOCU-

MENT ATTACHMENTS; RESEARCH APPLICA-

TION OF RULE 36 SANCTIONS.

10-13-86 RNB 2.00 130.00

REVISE PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO DETER-

MINE THE SUFFICIENCY OF DEFENDANT’S

ANSWERS AND OBJECTIONS TO REQUESTS

FOR ADMISSION; THOROUGH REVIEW AND

ANALYSIS OF DEFENDANT'S RESPONSES TO

PLAINTIFFS’ INTERROGATORIES AND

REQUESTS TO PRODUCE DATED MARCH 13,

1986.

10-13-86 MJC 3.30 132.00

REVIEW AND ANALYZE CITY’S RESPONSES

TO DISCOVERY; REVIEW FILE AND DRAFT

MEMORANDA REGARDING CONTROVERT-

ING EVIDENCE.

10-14-86 WWwP 1.00 100.00

REVIEW AND ANALYZE MOTION REGARD-

ING INSUFFICIENCY OF CITY’S ANSWERS.

10-14-86 RNB 3.30 214.50

FACT RESEARCH CONCERNING CITY’S DOC-

UMENTS AND TESTIMONY THAT REFUTE

DEFENDANT’S GENERAL DENIALS AND

OBJECTIONS TO REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION;

DRAFT SECOND ARGUMENT IN PLAINTIFFS’

MOTION TO DETERMINE THE SUFFICIENCY

OF THE CITY’S ANSWERS AND OBJECTIONS

TO REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION.

10-14-86 MJC 3.80 152.00

FURTHER REVIEW OF DEFENDANT’S

RESPONSES TO REQUESTS TO ADMIT;

DRAFT RESPONSE DOCUMENT REGARDING

INSUFFICIENCY OF RESPONSES.

119

10-1 ee WwWP 1.00 100.00

NALYZE PLAINTIFFS’ SUPPORTING |

MEM-

ORANDUM; LETTER TO MR. CLAPP. ’

10-15-86 MJC 1.80 72.00

REVIEW CITY’S RESPONSES TO

INTER-

ROGATORIES; COMPILE CONTROVERTING

DOCUMENTS.

10-16-86 WWP 0.50 50.00

IEW AND EDIT RESPONSES T a

ROGATORIES. a

10-16-86 RNB 1.50 97.50

DETAILED ANALYSIS OF DEFE

NDANT’S

RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ REQUESTS TO

PRODUCE AND INTERROGATORIES.

10-21-86 RNB 0.30 19.50

TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH JAN MOR- |

RISSEY, A PARALEGAL OF DINSE ERDMAN &

CLAPP, REGARDING COPYING

TIFFS’ EXHIBITS. steed

10-21-86 MJC 0.80 32.00

MEETING WITH PARALEGAL FRO

M CITY

REGARDING PHOTOCOPYING OF EXHIBITS.

10-27-86 ale ww 1.20 120.00

ANALYZE CITY’S RE |

FOR DOCUMENTS. _—

10-27-86 RNB 1.20 78.00

ANALYZE RESPONSE TO DEFEN

DANT’

REQUESTS TO PRODUCE. esis

10-27-86 MJC 0.80 32.00

REVIEW FILE FOR ORIGINA

ttn L CITY DOCU-

10-29-86 MJC 1.20 48.00

REVIEW AUDIO TAPE OF OGDEN TESTI-

MONY, OTHER TAPES, AND PHOTOS:

120

OBTAIN TRANSCRIPT OF OGDEN TESTI-

MONY.

10-31-86 WwWP 1.00 100.00

REVIEW AND ANALYZE MAGISTRATE’S

DECISION; ANALYZE IMPACT ON CASE.

10-31-86 RNB 0.50 32.50

REVIEW AND ANALYZE MAGISTRATE’S

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON THE

CITY’S MOTION TO JOIN AND THE THIRD-

PARTY DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS

THIRD-PARTY COMPLAINT.

11-05-86 WwWP 0.80 80.00

REVIEW GAS METER OPTIONS; REVIEW MR.

CLAPP’S LETTER.

11-03-86 MJC 2.40 96.00

REVIEW TRANSCRIPT OF OGDEN TESTI-

MONY; REVISE AND FILE SAME; REVIEW

CORRESPONDENCE FROM ATTORNEY

CLAPP AND DRAFT RESPONSE LETTER;

TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH CLIENT

REGARDING RECALIBRATION OF GAS

METER; DELIVER COPIES OF ATTORNEY

CLAPP’S LETTER AND MAGISTRATE’S

ORDER TO CLIENT.

11-04-86 WWP 0.60 60.00

FURTHER REVIEW OF MR. CLAPP’S LETTER;

FORMULATE REPLY.

11-04-86 MJC 1.50 60.00

REVIEW FILE AND OUTLINE QUESTIONS

FOR WITNESS INTERVIEWS.

11-05-86 WWwWP 1.00 100.00

REVIEW STATUS OF PLEADINGS AND DIS-

COVERY; ANALYZE PROPOSED ORDER.

121

11-05-86 RNB 1.80 117.00

ANALYSIS OF PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE TO |

DEFENDANT’S REQUESTS TO PROD

UCE;

DRAFT PROPOSED ORDER.

1-05-86 MJC 1.30 52.00

PLAN DISCOVERY AND ANALYZE SETTLE- |

MENT POSSIBILITIES; DRAFT LETTER TO

ATTORNEY CLAPP FOR RETURN OF ORIGI-

NAL DOCUMENTS.

11-07-86 WWP 1.00 100.00

LETTER TO COURT REGARDING P 7

LETTER ROPOSED

11-07-86 MIC 0.30 12.00

TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH SECRE-

TARY OF STATE REGARDING VAEC WASTE

MANAGEMENT REGULATIONS.

11-10-86 MJC 1.00 40.00

REVIEW PROPOSED DISCOVERY ORDER: —

FILE MAINTENANCE: MEMORANDUM

REGARDING DOCUMENTS TO BE COPIED AT

ATTORNEY CLAPP’S OFFICE; TELEPHONE

CONFERENCE WITH CLIENT REGARDING

RECALIBRATION OF GAS METER: MEM.

ORANDUM REGARDING SAME.

11-12-86 WwWwP 1.00 100.00

REVIEW CITY’S MOTION TO ENLARGE.

ANALYZE RESPONSE. ”

11-12-86 RNB 3.50 227.50

ANALYSIS OF DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO _

ENLARGE TIME AND BEGIN DRAFTING

PLAINTIFFS’ MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSI.

TION THERETO; ANALYSIS OF PRE-T

STRATEGY. —

122

11-13-86 RNB 1.00 65.00

ANALYSIS OF THIRD-PARTY DEFENDANT

GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY’S OBJEC-

TIONS TO MAGISTRATE’S REPORT AND REC-

OMMENDATION DATED 30 OCTOBER 1986.

11-17-86 WwWP 0.60 60.00

REVIEW DISCOVERY STATUS; REVIEW GAS

METER CALIBRATION ISSUE.

11-17-86 RNB 0.40 26.00

TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH DR.

FRANK REED REGARDING STATUS OF CASE

AND HIS AVAILABILITY FOR TRIAL.

11-19-86 WWP 1.50 150.00

REVIEW MOTION TO COMPEL, AFFIDAVIT,

MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO

MOTION TO ENLARGE, AND RESPONSE TO

REQUEST TO PRODUCE.

11-19-86 RNB 6.30 409.50

DRAFT PLAINTIFFS’ MEMORANDUM IN

OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO

ENLARGE TIME AND PLAINTIFFS’

RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT’S REQUEST TO

PRODUCE DATED OCTOBER 20, 1986; INITIAL

REVIEW AND EDIT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION

TO COMPEL, ALONG WITH SUPPORTING

AFFIDAVIT; REVIEW THIRD-PARTY DEFEN-

DANT E.B. AND A.C. WHITING COMPANY'S

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE OBJECTIONS

TO MAGISTRATE’S REPORT AND RECOM-

MENDATION DATED OCTOBER 30, 1986 OUT

OF TIME.

11-21-86 WWP 0.70 70.00

TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH MR.

CLAPP’S OFFICE; ANALYZE DISCOVERY

OPTIONS.

12-17-86 WwWwP 0.60

123

11-24-86 WwWP 0.60 60.00

OUTLINE MEMORANDUM TO AC

COMPANY

MOTION TO COMPEL; TELEPHONE CONFER-

ENCE WITH MR. CLAPP’S OFFICE.

11-24-86 MJC 0.80 32.00

PLAN FURTHER WORK FOR MO

TION T

COMPEL; FILE MAINTENANCE. °

11-25-86 MJC 1.50 60.00

DRAFT MEMORANDUM REGARDING DEFI- |

CIENCIES IN DEFENDANT’S DISCOVERY

RESPONSES.

he =—1 WWP 0.30 30.00

REVIEW MEMORANDUM FOR MOTION TO

11-26-86 MJC 0.50 20.00

REVISE MEMORANDUM REGAR

DING DIS-

COVERY DEFICIENCIES. ws

12-10-86 WWP 0.60 60.00

REVIEW FACTS AND MOTION TO COMPEL. 7

12-11-86 RNB 2.00 130.00

REVISE PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL

WITH SUPPORTING MEMORANDUM AND

AND [sic] AFFIDAVIT IN SUP

MOTION TO COMPEL. slits

12-12-86 WwWwP 0.50 50.00

REVIEW AND SEND MOTION TO

COMPEL;

ANALYZE ISSUES FOR TRIAL. )

60.00

ANALYZE OUTSTANDING MOTIONS: TELE-

PHONE CONFERENCE WITH C

MOTION STATUS. 2

124

12-29-86 WWP 1.50 150.00

REVIEW MOTIONS FILED BY G.E., BLODGETT

COMPANY AND E.B. AND A.C. WHITING

COMPANY.

12-29-86 MJC 0.20 8.00

FILE MAINTENANCE.

01-09-87 RNB 0.50 32.50

ANALYSIS OF THIRD PARTIES’ MEM-

ORANDA IN OPPOSITION TO MAGISTRATE’S

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF

OCTOBER 30, 1986.

01-09-87 MJC 1.00 40.00

PREPARE THIRD-PARTY PLEADINGS INDEX;

MEMORANDUM REGARDING OUTSTAND-

ING MOTIONS AND DISCOVERY.

01-12-87 WWP 0.40 40.00

REVIEW STRATEGY TO PRESSURE COURT

ACTION; REVIEW LIST OF OUTSTANDING

PLEADINGS AND DISCOVERY.

01-12-87 RNB 0.30 19.50

ANALYSIS OF PENDING MOTIONS AND

OUTSTANDING DISCOVERY.

01-12-87 MJC 0.50 20.00

CONFERENCE REGARDING MANAGEMENT

OF LAWSUIT, OUTSTANDING MOTIONS AND

DISCOVERY; REVISE MEMORANDUM

REGARDING SAME; REVIEW FILE.

01-13-87 WwWP 1.00 100.00

ANALYZE STATE DISMISSAL OF SUIT

AGAINST CITY; FURTHER REVIEW OF

PLEADINGS AND DISCOVERY.

01/13/87 MJC 0.30 12.00

REVIEW NEWS AND CLIP FOR FILE.

125

01/14/87 WwWP 0.30 30.00

REVIEW STATUS CONFERENCE REQUEST

UNDER LOCAL RULES. 7

01/20/87 WwWwP 0.30 30.00

REVIEW HAGAR HARDWARE’S AND G.E.’S

MOTIONS TO COMPEL.

01/20/87 WWP 0.30 30.00

REVIEW G.E. MOTION.

01/26/87. MJC 1.20 48.00

REVISE ANALYSIS OF DISCOVERY

RESPONSES. .

01/27/87 WWP 0.60 60.00

REVIEW SUPPLEMENTAL INTERROGATO-

RIES AND REQUESTS TO PRODUCE.

01/27/87 MJC 1.60 64.00

REVIEW CITY’S SUPPLEMENTAL DISCOVERY

RESPONSES; MEMORANDUM REGARDING

SAME; TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH

VERMONT PUBLIC INTEREST GROUP

REGARDING LANDFILL REPORT.

01/29/87 MIC 2.30 92.00

FURTHER REVIEW OF CITY’S SUPPLEMEN-

TAL DISCOVERY RESPONSES; COMPLETE

ANALYSIS OF SAME AND MEMORANDUM.

01/29/87 MJC 0.30 12.00

ARRANGE FOR DUPLICATION OF TAPED

STATEMENTS.

02/04/87 RNB 0.30 19.50

TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH ATTOR-

NEY CULLEN REGARDING CITY’S MEM-

ORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR

SEVERANCE.

02/06/87 MJC 0.40 16.00

FILE MAINTENANCE.

—_

126

02/09/87 WwwP 0.60 60.00

REVIEW COURT ORDER ON MAGISTRATE’S

RECOMMENDATION AND ORDER; REVIEW

THIRD PARTY BLODGETT’S MOTION TO

SEVER.

02/09/87 RNB 1.50 97.50

REVIEW AND ANALYSIS OF JUDGE BILL-

INGS’ 5 FEBRUARY 1987 ORDER;

02/11/87 WwP 0.40 40.00

REVIEW DOCUMENTS FROM COURT.

02/13/87 WWP 0.50 50.00

REVIEW MAGISTRATE’S ORDER AND

ANALYZE OPTIONS.

02/13/87 RNB 2.50 162.50

REVIEW AND ANALYSIS OF MAGISTRATE’S

12 FEBRUARY 1987 ORDER; LEGAL

RESEARCH ON STANDING ISSUE.

02/13/87 MJC 0.50 20.00

PREPARATION FOR STATUS HEARING.

02/16/87 WWP 0.30 30.00

READ MR. CLAPP’S LETTER.

02/17/87 RNB 3.00 195.00

INITIAL DRAFT OF MEMORANDUM IN SUP-

PORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ STANDING TO BRING

A CLAIM UNDER 42 U.S.C. SECTION

6972(A)(1)(B).

02/18/87 RNB 1.70 110.50

REVISE MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF

PLAINTIFFS’ STANDING; LEGAL RESEARCH

ON FEDERAL COURT AWARD OF ATTOR-

NEYS’ FEES.

02/19/87 WwWP 0.50 50.00

TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH COURT;

REVIEW LETTER TO MAGISTRATE.

127

02/19/87 RNB 0.20 13.00

TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH ATTOR- :

NEY HOAR REGARDING CITY’S RESPONSES

TO INTERROGATORIES OF T -

DEFENDANTS. ce atacicasia

02/19/87 MJC 1.20 48.00

EMORANDUM REGARDING PEN |

DING

MOTIONS AND DISCOVERY: FILE MAINTE.

NANCE; REVIEW CORRESPOND

; EN

REGARDING HEARING DATE. =

02/25/87 RNB 0.30 19.50

TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH ERNIE 3

DAGUE, JR. REGARDING CITY’S ANNUAL

REPORT AND STATEMENTS MADE BY MR

GOODKIND CONCERNING THE GENERA-

TION OF METHANE GAS AT THE LANDFILL.

02/27/87 WWP 0.60 60.00

REVIEW MR. HEMLEY’S LETTER: TELE-

PHONE CONFERENCE WITH MR. HEMLEY

03/02/87 RNB 0.30 19.50

REVIEW G.E.’S SUPPLEMENTAL ME

MORAN-

DUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS.

03/03/87 MJC 0.50 20.00

TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH CLIENT —

REGARDING HEARING DATE; FACT INVES-

TIGATION; TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH

COURT REGARDING HEARING DATE.

03/05/87 MJC 0.30 12.00

REVIEW BURLINGTON’S ANNUAL

REGARDING LANDFILL. te

03/09/87 RNB 0.30 19.50

REVIEW CITY OF BURLINGTON’

meta N’S ANNUAL

128

03/10/87 WWP 0.50 50.00

REVIEW OUTSTANDING MOTIONS FOR STA-

TUS CONFERENCE.

03/11/87 RNB 0.30 19.50

DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF STANDING

ISSUE WITH ATTORNEY PEARSON.

03/12/87 WWP 0.30 30.00

ANALYZE STANDING ISSUES FOR HEARING.

03/13/87 WWP 0.50 50.00

ANALYZE DIFFERENCES IN ANSWERS TO

INTERROGATORIES.

03/16/87 WwWP 2.80 280.00

REVIEW ALL OUTSTANDING MOTIONS;

HEARING ON MOTIONS; CONFERENCE

WITH CLIENT.

03/16/87 RNB 3.50 227.50

THOROUGH REVIEW AND ANALYSIS OF

CITY’S MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO

MOTION TO DISMISS; PREPARATION FOR

AND ATTEND HEARING ON THIRD-PARTY

DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS.

03/16/87 MIC 1.20 48.00

FILE MAINTENANCE; REVIEW STATUS OF

PLEADINGS AND DISCOVERY; UPDATE

MEMORANDUM REGARDING SAME; TELE-

PHONE CONFERENCE WITH CLIENT

REGARDING HEARING.

03/17/87 MIC 0.50 20.00

PREPARATION FOR HEARING.

03/19/87 WWP 0.40 40.00

REVIEW MR. CLAPP’S LETTER; ANALYZE

OPTIONS.

129

03/19/87 RNB 2.50 162.50

THOROUGH REVIEW AND ANALYSIS OF

ATTORNEY CLAPP’S 18 MARCH 1987 LETTER

TO MAGISTRATE NIEDERMEIER; IDENTIFY

AND DOCUMENT INACCURACIES IN

ATTORNEY CLAPP’S 18 MARCH 1987 LETTER

TO MAGISTRATE NIEDERMEIER.

03/19/87 MJC 1.00 40.00

MEMORANDUM SUMMARIZING INVESTI-

GATION TO DATE.

03/20/87 WwP 1.00 100.00

REVIEW ANNOTATED LETTER; REVIEW

OPTIONS; TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH

MR. MCKEARIN.

03/20/87 RNB 0.70 45.50

FURTHER ANALYSIS OF ATTORNEY CLAPP’S

18 MARCH 1987 LETTER TO MAGISTRATE

NIEDERMEIR AND PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE

THERETO.

03/23/87 WWP 0.20 20.00

REVIEW ITEMS TO BE COVERED IN MEETING

WITH ATTORNEY CLAPP.

03/24/87 RNB 0.50 32.50

LEGAL RESEARCH ON DENIALS UNDER

F.R.C.P. 36 (A) AND CASELAW THEREUNDER.

03/25/87 WWP 0.30 30.00

REVIEW DISCOVERY STATUS REGARDING

CITY’S FAILURE TO MAKE MEETING.

03/25/87 RNB 0.20 13.00

MEMORANDUM TO ATTORNEY PEARSON

REGARDING PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE TO

ATTORNEY CLAPP’S 3-18-87 LETTER TO THE

MAGISTRATE AND EFFORTS TO DISCUSS

DEFENDANT’S INSUFFICIENT RESPONSES

TO PLAINTIFFS’ REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION.

130

12.00

03/25/87 MJC 0.30

TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH got

REGARDING STATUS OF MOTIONS TO DIS-

MISS.

50.00

03/30/87 WwP 0.50

REVIEW DISCOVERY OPTIONS.

32.50

04/02/87 RNB 0.50

, DRAFT LETTER TO MAGISTRATE NEIDER-

MEIR.

04/03/87 WwWP 1.00 100.00

EVALUATE CITY’S DISCOVERY POSITION;

EDIT LETTER TO MAGISTRATE.

04/07/87 WwP 0.30 30.00

REVIEW MR. CLAPP’S LETTER.

04/08/87 WwWP 0.20 20.00

H MR.

TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WIT

CLAPP’S OFFICE TO SCHEDULE MEETING.

12.00

04/08/87 MJC 0.30

REVIEW CORRESPONDENCE REGARDING

DISCOVERY PROBLEMS.

150.00

04/09/87 WwWP 1.50 7

PREPARE FOR MEETING WITH MR. CLAPP;

CONFERENCE WITH MR. CLAPP.

RNB 1.30 84.50

ao PREPARE FOR AND CONFERENCE WITH

ATTORNEY CLAPP REGARDING DEFEN-

DANT’S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS

REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION.

7 RNB 0.40 26.00

oN CONFERENCE WITH ATTORNEY PEARSON

TO DISCUSS PROFESSOR PINDER AS AN

EXPERT AND DEFENDANT'S RESPONSES TO

PLAINTIFFS’ REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION.

131

04/21/87 MJC 0.60 24.00

FILE MAINTENANCE.

04/28/87 MJC 1.80 72.00

ANALYZE NEED FOR WETLAND EXPERT:

TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH PRINCE-

TON FOR EXPERT’S PHONE NUMBERS; TELE-

PHONE CONFERENCE WITH

ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSIONER

REGARDING STATUS OF LAMOILLE CO.

LANDFILL; DRAFT NOTICE OF DEPOSITION

FOR HAGAR; CONFIRM WITH FEDERAL

COURT REGARDING VALIDITY OF AGED

SUBPOENAS.

04/30/87 MJC 0.80 32.00

TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH GEORGE

PINDER REGARDING HYDROLGEOLOGY;

REVIEW FILE REGARDING SAME.

05/05/87 MJC 0.30 12.00

MEMORANDUM TO ATTORNEY PEARSON

REGARDING TELEPHONE CONFERENCE

WITH PINDER.

05/10/87 WwP 0.60 60.00

ANALYZE ATTORNEY FEES ISSUE; REVIEW

DEPOSITION NOTICE.

05/12/87 MIC 0.40 16.00

TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH DON

BESSETTE REGARDING PROPOSED CON.

STRUCTION ON MOTHER’S PROPERTY:

MEMORANDUM REGARDING SAME.

05/13/87 RNB 0.80 52.00

REVIEW MAGISTRATE’S REPORT AND REC-

OMMENDATION DATED 12 MAY 1987: PREP-

ARATION FOR DEPOSITION OF HAGAR

HARDWARE; ANALYSIS OF SETTLEMENT

STRATEGIES.

132

12.00

05/13/87 MJC 0.30 —

MEMORANDUM TO ATTORNEY

REGARDING HAGAR DEPOSITION.

12.00

05/14/87 MJC 0.30 ot

TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WI cheno

NEY KEYES TO SCHEDULE HAGAR D

TION.

05/18/87 MJC 0.80 aaa

TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH ~-wle

REGARDING WINDBLOWN TRASH Ape

LEM; MEMORANDUM TO ATTORNEY nee

SON REGARDING SAME; one’ meee

CONFERENCE WITH ATTORNEY K

REGARDING HAGAR DEPOSITION.

30.00

05/25/87 WWP 0.30

STATUS REVIEW. ca

19.

05/26/87. RNB 0.30

WITH ATTOR-

TELEPHONE CONFERENCE ; /

NEY CULLEN REGARDING CITY’S yes

TIONS TO MAGISTRATE’S REPORT

RECOMMENDATIONS DATED 5-12-87.

40.00

05/27/87 WwwPpP 0.40

REVIEW MAGISTRATE’S ORDER AND CITY S

APPEAL. i

05/27/87 RNB 0.40 ,

‘ TO MAGIS-

REVIEW CITY’S OBJECTIONS

TRATE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

DATED 5-12-87.

20.00

02/87 MIC 0.50 3

06/ ANALYSIS OF CLIENT CONTACT ISSUES;

TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH ERNEST

DAGUE TO SCHEDULE MEETING.

.40

06/03/87 WwWwP 0

REVIEW CLIENT PROBLEMS WITH CITY.

40.00

133

06/03/87 MJC 0.70 28.00

TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH ATTOR-

NEY CLAPP REGARDING PERMISSION TO

DEAL WITH GOODKIND FOR BUILDING PER-

MIT; TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH

ERNIE DAGUE REGARDING STATUS OF

CASE; TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH

ATTORNEY KEYES REGARDING HAGAR

DEPOSITION.

06/05/87 RNB 0.60 39.00

REVIEW G.E.‘S AND WHITING’S RESPONSES

TO CITY’S OBJECTIONS TO MAGISTRATE’S

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION DATED

12 MAY 1987.

06/05/87 MJC 1.20 48.00

REVIEW MEMORANDA SUPPORTING DIS-

MISSAL OF THIRD-PARTY DEFENDANTS;

FILE MAINTENANCE; REVIEW NEWS

REGARDING LOCAL LANDFILLING: DRAFT

NOTICE FOR HAGAR DEPOSITION.

06/09/87 WwWwpP 1.00 100.00

REVIEW THIRD PARTY’S RESPONSE TO

CITY’S OBJECTION TO MAGISTRATE’S

REPORT.

06/09/87 MJC 0.60 24.00

REVISE HAGAR DEPOSITION NOTICE; TELE-

PHONE CONFERENCE WITH ATTORNEY

KEYES TO CONFIRM DEPOSITION DATE;

DRAFT DISCOVERY CERTIFICATE AND LET-

TER TO COURT.

06/10/87 wwe 1.30 130.00

CONFERENCE WITH CLIENTS; REVIEW

MEMORANDUM REGARDING COMPLIANCE

WITH ASSURANCE.

134

06/10/87 RNB 1.00 65.00

STATUS CONFERENCE WITH ERNIE DAGUE,

JR=-AND ERNIE DAGUE, SR.

06/10/87 MJC 1.60 64.00

“MEETING WITH CLIENTS REGARDING STA-

TUS OF CASE; TELEPHONE CONFERENCE

WITH JULIE HACKBARTH REGARDING

COMPLIANCE BY CITY WITH TERMS OF LAT-

EST ASSURANCE OF DISCONTINUANCE;

MEMORANDUM REGARDING SAME.

06/11/87 RNB 0.30 19.50

TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH ATTOR-

NEY CULLIN REGARDING DEPOSITION OF

HAGAR HARDWARE COMPANY.

06/11/87 MJC 0.30 12.00

REVIEW HAGAR’S OBJECTIONS TO MAGIS-

TRATE’S ORDER; FILE MAINTENANCE.

06/12/87 MJC 0.50 20.00

EXTENDED TELEPHONE CONFERENCE

WITH JULIE HACKBARTH REGARDING CITY

COMPLIANCE WITH ASSURANCE OF DIS-

CONTINUANCE.

06/15/87 MJC 0.60 24.00

MEMORANDUM REGARDING TELEPHONE

CONFERENCE WITH JULIE HACKBARTH;

PREPARATION FOR HAGAR DEPOSITION.

06/16/87 RNB 0.60 39.00

TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH ATTOR-

NEY CLAPP REGARDING HIS

UNAVAILABILITY FOR DEPOSITION OF

HAGAR HARDWARE COMPANY; REVIEW

LEGAL ASSISTANT CASE’S MEMORANDUM

REGARDING HIS TELEPHONE CONFERENCE

WITH JULIE HACKBARTH OF VAEC.

135

06/17/87 WWP 0.30 30.00

PREPARE OUTLINE FOR FURTHER WORK TO

BE DONE.

06/18/87 MJC 3.50 140.00

REVIEW VAEC FILES FOR LANDFILL INSPEC-

TION REPORTS, WATER TEST RESULTS, AND

RECENT CORRESPONDENCE; MEMORAN-

DUM TO ATTORNEY PEARSON REGARDING

SAME.

06/23/87 MJC 1.20 48.00

REVIEW SETTLEMENT STRATEGY MEM-

ORANDUM AND WORK TO DO IN PREPARA-

TION FOR SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE

AND® OR TRIAL; FILE MAINTENANCE.

06/25/87 RNB 0.40 26.00

LEGAL RESEARCH ON CITIZEN SUITS FOR

PAST VIOLATIONS OF CLEAN WATER ACT.

07/07/87 RNB 1.50 105.00

INITIAL DRAFT OF DEMAND LETTER TO

ATTORNEY CLAPP; REVISE SAME.

07/07/87 MIC 0.40 18.00

TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH ATTOR-

NEY CLAPP FOR DEPOSITION DATES;

REVIEW CORRESPONDENCE FROM ATTOR-

NEY KEYES REGARDING SAME; LETTER TO

ATTORNEY KEYES REGARDING SAME.

07/08/87 WWP 0.30 34.50

REVIEW OPPOSITION TO AMENDMENT TO

THIRD-PARTY COMPLAINT.

07/08/87 RNB 0.30 21.00

TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH ATTOR-

NEY CULLEN REGARDING CITY’S MOTION

TO AMEND THIRD-PARTY COMPLAINT.

136

07/08/87 MJC 0.30 13.50

TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH ATTOR-

NEY CLAPP REGARDING HAGAR DEPOSI-

TION.

07/09/87 RNB 0.30 21.00

REVIEW MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO

CITY’S MOTION TO AMEND THIRD-PARTY

COMPLAINT.

07/14/87 WWP 0.40 46.00

REVIEW RECENT FILINGS ON CITY’S

MOTION TO AMEND.

07/28/87 MJC 0.50 22.50

TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH ATTOR-

NEY KEYES REGARDING SCHEDULING

HAGAR DEPOSITION; MEMORANDUM TO

ATTORNEY BLAND REGARDING SAME.

07/31/87 MJC 0.40 18.00

RENOTICE DEPOSITION OF HAGAR.

08/03/87 MJC 4.00 180.00

REVIEW AEC WATER TESTS, INSPECTION

REPORTS, AND 1986 CORRESPONDENCE;

TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH WIT-

NESSES FOR FURTHER INFORMATION.

08/14/87 WWP 0.50 57.50

LETTER TO DR. REED.

08/16/87 RNB 1.50 105.00

REVIEW HAGAR HARDWARE DOCUMENTS

AND DEPOSITIONS OF OTHER THIRD-PARTY

DEFENDANTS IN PREPARATION FOR DEPO-

SITION OF HAGAR HARDWARE.

08/17/87 WwWP 0.50 57.50

TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH DR.

REED’S OFFICE; ANALYZE STATUS.

137

08/18/87 WWP 0.30 34.50

TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH DR.

FRANK REED.

08/19/87 WWP 0.80 92.00

REVIEW THIRD-PARTY STRATEGY AND

INSURANCE COVERAGE ISSUES; MEM-

ORANDUM ON LANDFILL EMPLOYEES.

08/19/87 RNB 3.90 273.00

TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH ATTOR-

NEY CULLEN REGARDING DEPOSITION OF

HAGAR HARDWARE AND INSURANCE COV-

ERAGE FOR THIRD-PARTY DEFENDANTS;

PREPARATION FOR AND DEPOSITION OF G.

HENRY HAGAR; STATUS REPORT TO ATTOR-

NEY PEARSON.

08/20/87 WWP 0.80 92.00

REVIEW HAGAR HARDWARE DEPOSITION;

CONFERENCE WITH MR. WADHAMS ON

THIRD-PARTY STATUS AND SETTLEMENT

OPTIONS.

08/24/87 MJC 0.50 22.50

STATUS LETTER TO CLIENT.

08/31/87 WWP 0.30 34.50

ANALYZE THIRD-PARTY GENERATOR

ISSUES UNDER RCRA.

09/04/87 RNB 0.40 28.00

REVIEW AND ANALYSIS OF JUDGE BILL-

INGS’ OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING

THIRD-PARTY DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO

DISMISS.

09/24/87 MIC 0.40 18.00

PLAN FOR FURTHER WORK TO BE DONE ON

CASE.

138

09/25/87 WWP 1.50 172.50

REVIEW STATUS IN PREPARATION FOR

OCTOBER 1 CONFERENCE; CONFERENCE

WITH CLIENTS.

09/28/87 RNB 0.30 21.00

PREPARATION FOR STATUS CONFERENCE

AND ANALYSIS OF DISCOVERY MATTERS IN

PREPARATION FOR TRIAL.

- 09/29/87 WWP 0.80 92.00

OUTLINE REMAINING TASKS; TELEPHONE

CONFERENCE WITH COURT.

09/30/87 MJC 0.30 13.50

PREPARATION FOR PRETRIAL CONFER-

ENCE.

10/01/87 MJC 0.30 13.50

FILE MAINTENANCE.

10/05/87 WWP 2.00 230.00

REVIEW EXPERT STATUS; LIST ALL OUT-

STANDING MOTIONS; REVIEW CITY’S

REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION AND

ORAL ARGUMENT.

10/05/87 RNB 0.50 35.00

REVIEW AND ANALYSIS OF CITY’S REQUEST

FOR RECONSIDERATION AND ORAL ARGU-

MENT AND IN THE ALTERNATIVE FOR CER-

TIFICATION PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C.

SECTION 1292 (B); LEGAL RESEARCH ON

APPEALS FROM INTERLOCUTORY DECI-

SIONS.

10/06/87 WWP 3.50 402.50

PREPARE FOR AND ATTEND STATUS CON-

FERENCE.

10/06/87 RNB 3.50 245.00

PREPARATION FOR STATUS CONFERENCE;

ANALYSIS OF DISCOVERY MATTERS AND

139

AMENDING COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATING

LATEST ASSURANCE OF DISCONTINUANCE

REGARDING RESOURCE RECOVERY FACIL-

ITY PROVISION; DRAFT MOTION FOR SEPA-

RATE TRIALS AND SUPPORTING

MEMORANDUM; ATTEND STATUS CONFER-

ENCE.

10/06/87 MJC 0.80 36.00

PREPARATION FOR STATUS CONFERENCE;

TRIAL PREPARATION.

10/07/87 MJC 0.20 9.00

ASSIGNMENT REGARDING DISCOVERY

UPDATE.

10/12/87 WwWP 0.50 57.50

ANALYZE MAGISTRATE’S RULINGS.

10/13/87 RNB 0.40 28.00

LEGAL RESEARCH ON SUBSTITUTION OF

PARTIES UNDER F.R.C.P. 25(A).

10/14/87 WwpP 3.40 391.00

CONFERENCE WITH MRS. DAGUE;

RESEARCH MOOTNESS ISSUE; ANALYZE

SUBSTITUTION OF PARTIES UNDER RULE 25.

10/15/87 WwWP 1.50 172.50

TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH CLIENT;

OUTLINE ALL ASPECTS OF CASE FOR DIS-

COVERY, TRIAL PREPARATION AND SETTLE-

MENT.

10/15/87 RNB 0.50 35.00

ANALYSIS OF AND PLAN FOR FURTHER DIS-

COVERY AND INVESTIGATION, SUBSTITU-

TION OF PARTY, LEGAL RESEARCH UPDATE

AND PREPARATION FOR SUBMITTAL OF

PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT.

140

10/15/87 MJC 0.60 27.00

PLAN DISCOVERY STATUS OF CASE FROM

PRE-TRIAL HEARING.

10/16/87 WwPpP 1.00 115.00

OULTINE [SIC] CASE STRATEGY IN VIEW OF

MAGISTRATE’S DISCOVERY ORDER.

10/16/87 MJC 0.20 9.00

REVIEW WORK TO BE DONE.

10/19/87 WwWwpP 2.00 230.00

TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH MRS.

DAGUE; CONFERENCE WITH MS. DAGUE;

REVIEW TERMS OF DEMAND LETTER.

10/19/87 RNB 3.30 231.00

LEGAL RESEARCH UPDATE UNDER RCRA

AND CWA; LEGAL RESEARCH ON MINIMUM

REQUIREMENTS FOR RESOURCE RECOVERY

FACILITIES UNDER RCRA.

10/19/87 MJC 2.80 126.00

DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL INTERROGATORIES

AND REQUESTS TO PRODUCE; REVIEW DIS-

COVERY FILE.

10/20/87 WwwpP 1.50 172.50

EDIT DEMAND LETTER; PLAN WORK

ASSIGNMENTS FOR NEXT WEEK.

10/20/87 RNB 0.70 49.00

TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH ATTOR-

NEY BOWLES REGARDING OCTOBER 6, 1987

STATUS CONFERENCE BEFORE MAGISTRATE

NIEDERMEIER; ANALYSIS OF PROPOSED

DEMAND FOR SETTLEMENT, CITY’S OFFER

TO PROVIDE MR. DAGUE WITH TOPSOIL,

SUPPLEMENTAL DISCOVERY REQUESTS

AND PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT.

141

10/20/87 MJC 1.40 63.00

REVISE SUPPLEMENTAL DISCOVERY

REQUESTS; REVIEW DEMAND LETTER TO

CITY.

10/21/87 RNB 0.90 63.00

DRAFT REVISIONS TO AND ANALYSIS OF

DEMAND LETTER; LEGAL RESEARCH ON

APPLICABILITY OF MINIMUM FEDERAL

REQUIREMENTS OF RCRA WHEN STATE HAS

AN APPROVED EPA HAZARDOUS WASTE

PROGRAM.

10/21/87 MJC 1.70 76.50

DRAFT PROPOSED FACTS FOR TRIAL.

10/22/87 WwwP 1.50 172.50

ANALYZE TECHNIQUES FOR EXAMINING

CITY’S EXPERT WITNESSES; EVALUATE EVI-

DENCE NEEDED TO PROVE GROUNDWATER

CONTAMINATION.

10/23/87 WwWwP 1.00 115.00

FURTHER EVALUATE CITY’S EXPERTS’ TESTI-

MONY, INCLUDING IMPACT ON WETLANDS

AND METHANE GAS MIGRATION.

10/23/87 RNB 0.70 49.00

REVIEW AND ANALYSIS OF GENERAL ELEC-

TRIC’S MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO

CITY’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OR

INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL; TELEPHONE

CONFERENCE WITH ATTORNEY CAIN

REGARDING SAME.

10/26/87 WwwPpP 0.30 34.50

REVIEW MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO

CITY’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION;

ANALYZE RESULTS. .

10/26/87 MIC 1.00 45.00

REVISE PROPOSED FACTS FOR TRIAL.

142

10/27/87 WwWwP 2.80 322.00

REVIEW SUPPLEMENTAL DISCOVERY

REQEUSTS [SIC]; REVIEW PROPOSED FIND-

INGS OF FACT.

10/27/87 MJC 3.60 162.00

REVIEW CITY’S VIOLATIONS OF ASSUR-

ANCE OF DISCONTINUANCE; REVIEW CHIT-

TENDEN COURT FILE FOR CITY-STATE

LITIGATION; COMPLETE FOURTH SET OF

INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS TO PRO-

DUCE TO CITY; TRIAL PREPARATION.

10/28/87 WwWP 3.00 345.00

ANALYZE ASSURANCE OF DISCONTI-

NUANCE PROBLEMS; LEGAL RESEARCH ON

RESOURCE RECOVERY FACILITIES.

10/28/87 RNB 1.10 77.00

ANALYSIS OF FEDERAL GUIDELINES FOR

RESOURCE RECOVERY FACILITIES AND OF

CITY’S COMPLIANCE, OR LACK THEREOF,

WITH THE THIRD ASSURANCE OF DISCON-

TINUANCE.

10/28/87 MJC 0.20 9.00

LETTER TO CLERK FOR COURT DOCU-

MENTS.

10/29/87 WwWwpP 1.20 138.00

REVIEW HAGAR MEMORANDUM IN OPPO-

SITION TO RECONSIDERATION; REVIEW

JUDGE BILLINGS’ ORDER; FURTHER ANAL-

YSIS OF ASSURANCE OF DISCONTINUANCE

COMPLIANCE; REVISE AHERN LETTER.

10/29/87 RNB 0.50 35.00

This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.