Thursday, March 12, 2015 Leon F. Mead, II Email: lmead@swlaw.com Snell & Wilmer LLP 3883 Howard Hughes Pkwy, Suite 1100 Las Vegas, Nevada 89169
Re
City of Loyalton v. Stantec Consulting Services, Inc., Case No. CV13-‐079346 (Nevada County)
Dear Mr. Mead, On January 9, 2015, Stantec Consulting, Inc. (“Stantec”) formally demanded access to the City of Loyalton (“Loyalton”) Waste Water Treatment Facility (“WWTF”). Loyalton then began imposing conditions on Stantec’s discovery rights. Rather than engage in litigation on this collateral issue, Stantec elected to work with Loyalton to negotiate a testing plan. At Loyalton’s request, the Rinal testing protocol was Rinalized on February 20, 2015 and stamped by Stantec’s consulting engineer. Then, after the testing protocol was agreed, on February 25, 2015, you sent email correspondence refusing permission to proceed with the testing and, six minutes later, retracting your position. Loyalton sent its engineering consultants to observe the testing. They did not merely observe, but actively interfered with Stantec’s prosecution of the agreed testing protocol. First, Mr. Valceschini complained that the sampling should not include excavation of “numerous holes into the embankment” because it would be impossible to repair those holes, would cause the liner to bridge, and would affect the long-‐term operation of the pond. See February 26, 2015 email from Valceschini to Leon Mead. Mr. Spandau’s sampling was entirely consistent with the agreed protocol, and Mr. Valceschini’s interference slowed the testing. Then, Loyalton demanded that Stantec’s consultants place base rock or other aggregate material on the embankment before re-‐welding the liner. Our liner contractor, Comanco, refused to follow this procedure because of the adverse effect it would have on the liner. Mr. Valceschini’s demand was inconsistent with the agreed protocol, and slowed the testing. 775.786.8000 | 50 W. Liberty St., Suite 840 | Reno, Nevada 89501 702.823.0201 | 3735 Howard Hughes Parkway, Suite 200 | Las Vegas, Nevada 89169 www.nevadalaw.com Licensed in Nevada and California
Leon Mead March 12, 2015
Page 2
Stantec’s consultants planned to sample the embankments in four or Rive locations. Because of Mr. Valceschini’s active interference with the Rirst sample area, we were unable to proceed with additional testing of the embankment soils. Additionally, because it was clear that Loyalton’s consultants were intent on interfering with our tests, we did not proceed with drilling the wells through the embankments into to the natural surface elevations to determine water levels. We await laboratory results for the test samples. Once we have the report, we will immediately share the results with you. I assume that Loyalton has taken its own samples to prove its case, and that any laboratory reports will be provided as part of your experts’ job Riles. Very truly yours, HOY CHRISSINGER KIMMEL VALLAS, PC
Michael D. Hoy mhoy@nevadalaw.com (775) 785-‐3471 (direct)