brief? Not if it’s 125 pages – a MRGO post-trial update

Post Trial Briefs–no Findings of Fact or Conclusions of Law are required to be filed and are optional. Briefs cannot exceed 125 pages…

  • Plaintiffs’ Post-Trial Memorandum shall be filed by June 18, 2009.
  • Defendants’ Post Trial Memorandum shall be filed by July 20, 2009.
  • Plaintiffs’ Reply Memorandum shall be filed by August 3, 2009.

With the issues Judge Duval wants briefed, 125 pages may be a bit of a squeeze, as these examples from the three-page list in his Order detailing the post-trial briefing schedule suggest:

  • Explain why some levees failed and others did not and how that supports the Plaintiffs’ theory of front side erosion and lateral subsidence.
  • Brief the differences between the Plaintiffs’ theory of wave attack and the Defendants’ theory and explain why one theory is better than the other.
  • Explain, especially in reference to the New Orleans East polder, what the MRGO did to exacerbate the flooding in those areas. How would it have been prevented? How much water would have been in those polders, regardless of the existence of the MRGO as widened.

A few days later, he issued a second Order on the matter with no associated increase in the page limit:

IT IS ORDERED that the parties shall brief and point to the record concerning the effect of the widening of the MRGO and the erosion of the wetlands as it relates to the front sidewave attack theory of the plaintiffs.

The Court is specifically interested in comparing Vrijling Scenario 3 to Vrijling Scenario 1. In other words, did the widening of the MRGO and the erosion of the wetlands cause the Reach 2 levees to fail from front side wave attack or would the same result have occurred with the MRGO as authorized with no wetland erosion. This same question should also be addressed with respect to lateral displacement.

Judge Duval has already ruled on the first post-trial matter issued his Order and Reasons for excluding Dalrymple deposition submitted by Plaintiffs.

In a related development, the Fifth Circuit denied Appeal of Robinson Plaintiffs and others and affirmed Judge Duval’s Order of Judgment and dismissal of defendant engineering firms that performed maintenance work on the 17th Street Canal under contract with the Corps of Engineers.

Thursday is deadline day for the government’s 125 page not-so-brief brief; and, once it’s up, we’ll grab it and post on SLABBED.

4 thoughts on “brief? Not if it’s 125 pages – a MRGO post-trial update”

  1. Hey Doucy, you been staying up all night on top of this freaking mountain of mole hills, this veritable eructation of elucidation, this hrrrrrmph’ninnity in the Eye of the Exquisite Corps, this… this Co’Ho’Down Trowdown???

    You know… if we can ever get any Insurance executives in the Rink, I hope they let you be the ref, or at least the announcer: “Wait folks… it appears that The People… they have a foreign object! Yes! But…wait, what do they plan to do with it? Rut’Row… they are about to perform the dreaded maneuver called “the reverse-slabberator”!
    Ref! Ref! Can’t you see the goddamn foreign object???
    Hey Ref! Wait, what’s she doing now? Turning her back? What? Ladies and Gentlemen, the Ref has left the building and the People have gone wild!”

    I hope yer’laughin ’cause this coverage is some hard forking work, and I really appreciate it.
    Thanks youz.

  2. I am laughing! Thanks – and, yes, covering MRGO is “some hard forking work”.

    You can google yourself to death just trying to understand the stuff – if my brain cells for MRGO blowout and I pass from constriction of information, promise me you’ll deliver the eulogy.

  3. Smith, Barksdale and Prado could not have been collectively so stupid and incompetent as to render such a decision in the cases involving the contractors and engineers and the Outfall Canals, leading me to personally conclude that they are crooked SOB’s. I will be filing Complaint(s) of Judicial Misconduct against them in due course. I have already demanded that their telephone records and computer hard drives, laptops and blackberries be preserved as evidence. I am as “serious as a heart attack” about this. AROD.

  4. I can see that but, I’ve known Barksdale a long time and hope you’ll consider that disagreeing with you does not make someone a crook. Some will be and others not but even those who are may be doing nothing illegal related to your point of disagreement ( they could be law abiding by day and dress up at night in all black and rob away) : )

    There was considerable examination of the contractor responsibility and like MRGO, the decision was based on who did and did not have immunity. I was interested and probably saved some of the related documents – now I just have to remember what I called them so I can post them.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *