Great Lakes Gas Transmission Limited Partnership v. Essar Steel Minnesota, LLC et al

Filing 511

ORDER: Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Supplement the Summary Judgment Record 502 is GRANTED; Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File a Reply 507 is GRANTED; Defendants may file a sur-reply, as set forth herein; Plaintiff's Reply shall be filed no later than Friday, February 8, 2013; and Defendants' Sur-Reply shall be filed no later than Thursday, February 14, 2013. (Written Opinion) Signed by Judge Susan Richard Nelson on 02/04/2013. (jmf)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

Great Lakes Gas Transmission Limited
Partnership,

Civil No. 09-CV-3037 (SRN/LIB)

Plaintiff,
ORDER
v.
Essar Steel Minnesota, LLC; Essar Steel
Holdings, Ltd.; Essar Steel Limited; and
Essar Global Limited, a/k/a Essar Group,
Defendants.

Barbara L. Wohlrabe, Susan D. Nassar, and David W. Elrod, Elrod PLLC, 500 North Akard Suite
3000 Dallas, Texas 75201; David T. Schultz and Julian C. Zebot, Maslon, Edelman, Borman &
Brand, LLP, 90 South Seventh Street Suite 3300, Minneapolis, Minnesota, 55402, for Plaintiff
Stephanie J. Goldstein, Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson, LLP, One New York Plaza,
New York, New York 10004; Thomas S. Fraser and Nicole Moen, Fredrikson & Byron, PA, 200
South Sixth Street, Suite 4000, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402, for Defendants
_____________________________________________________________________________
SUSAN RICHARD NELSON, United States District Court Judge
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Supplement the
Summary Judgment Record [Doc. No. 502] and Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File a Reply [Doc.
No. 507]. For the reasons that follow, Plaintiff’s motions are granted. Defendants are also
permitted to file a sur-reply.
Plaintiff seeks permission to supplement the summary judgment record with three
documents which it contends are pertinent to the issue of whether Defendants may assert Tariff
section 6.13.8 as an affirmative defense to Plaintiff’s claims. The three documents in question
1

include the following: (1) a March 2, 2009 letter from former defense counsel Avron Gordon to
counsel for the sellers of Minnesota Steel Industries (“MSI”); (2) a May 31, 2006 letter from
Great Lakes to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (“FERC”); and (3) a June 30, 2006
letter from the FERC to Great Lakes. (Pls.’ Mot. for Leave to Supp. Record at 2-3 [Doc. No.
502].) Defendants submitted a memorandum in opposition to Plaintiff’s motion, arguing that the
proposed supplemental materials do not alter the meaning of the provisions of the Tariff, and
therefore should not be considered by the Court. (Defs.’ Opp’n Mem. at 1-2 [Doc. No. 505].) In
response to Defendants’ opposition memorandum, Plaintiff has requested leave to file a reply in
response to legal arguments raised in Defendants’ opposition memorandum. (Pl.’s Mot. for Leave
to File Reply at 1 [Doc. No. 507].)
Having reviewed the parties’ submissions, the Court grants Plaintiff’s motions. The Court
will permit the supplementation of the record as well as Plaintiff’s request to file a reply, limited
to the legal issues raised in Defendants’ opposition memorandum. In addition to permitting
Plaintiff to file a reply , the Court also grants Defendants the opportunity to file a sur-reply. The
sur-reply is likewise limited to the issues raised in Plaintiff’s reply. The reply and sur-reply
should shall be no more than five (5) pages in length.
THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
1.

Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Supplement the Summary Judgment Record [Doc.
No. 502] is GRANTED;

2.

Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File a Reply [Doc. No. 507] is GRANTED;

3.

Defendants may file a sur-reply, as set forth herein;

4.

Plaintiff’s Reply shall be filed no later than Friday, February 8, 2013; and
2

5.

Dated:

Defendants’ Sur-Reply shall be filed no later than Thursday, February 14, 2013.

February 4, 2013
s/Susan Richard Nelson
SUSAN RICHARD NELSON
United States District Court Judge

3