# Joint Appendix Vol I — Burlington v. Dague > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385013_0215%3A05 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Joint Appendix Vol I - **Published:** January 1, 1992 - **Citation:** 505 U.S. 557 ## Text L. itt, JS. 7 i) 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. S 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 i TABLE OF CONTENTS Volume I 1. 2. 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 oO 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 9. 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. ii 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, i 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 1 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. 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 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 7 10 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 11 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. _— ~~? 12 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. 13 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. 14 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 15 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. 16 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. 17 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 18 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: 1. 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). 2. 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. 19 3. 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. 4. 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. 5. 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. 20 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. 6. 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, 21 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. 7. 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 24 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 25 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 26 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. 27 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 28 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 B. 9. 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 29 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 30 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 31 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 32 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. 33 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. 34 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. 35 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. 36 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. 37 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. 38 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 39 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. 40 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 41 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 42 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. 43 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 44 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 45 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. 46 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. 47 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. 48 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. 49 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 50 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’ 51 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 52 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 53 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 54 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 55 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 56 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. 57 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. 58 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 59 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. 60 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. 61 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. 62 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. 63 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 64 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. 65 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. 66 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 67 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. 68 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 69 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. 70 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. 71 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. — 72 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. 73 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. 74 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. 75 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. 76 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 77 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. 78 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. \ 79 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 80 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. 81 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 82 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 83 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 86 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. 87 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; 88 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. 89 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. 90 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 91 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 92 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 93 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. 94 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. 95 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. 96 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 97 — 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. 98 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. 99 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 READING [Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.] --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385013_0215%3A05. Public record. Not legal advice.