Springdale injunction attorneys again spar over exhibits, filings

Another battle of documents is being waged in the Springdale boiler house implosion litigation.

Allegheny County Judge John T. McVay Jr. on Thursday granted a motion from Charah Solutions, owner of the former power plant in Springdale, that seeks all of the exhibits residents submitted on the last day of the injunction trial, Nov. 20.

Charah’s attorneys said in their filing the residents did not provide them with a full copy of the exhibits submitted to the court, which they need to complete filing their appeal to the state’s Superior Court.

McVay ruled, regardless of whether the plaintiffs provided copies of their exhibits previously, they must provide an electronic set of their exhibits to Charah within seven days of his Feb. 29 order.

In September, 16 Springdale residents filed suit to block an implosion of the boiler house at the former Cheswick Generating Station. After a trial, McVay in December granted the injunction and also set forth a list of items that needed to be accomplished before he considers dissolving the injunction and allowing a demolition to proceed.

Charah and two other defendants in the case — demolition contractor Grant Mackay Co. and explosives subcontractor Controlled Demolition Inc. — appealed McVay’s decision in January.

In connection with appeal requirements, defense attorneys are working to file all of their admitted exhibits, according to the Feb. 20 filing from Laura Veith, who represents Charah. She asked the residents’ attorneys for their admitted exhibits so they can be filed on the docket, which they repeatedly haven’t done, the filing claims.

“Consequently, the plaintiffs provided the court with an electronic copy of all of their exhibits on an ex parte basis, without ever providing the same to the defendants, contrary to Judge McVay’s standard operating procedures,” the filing states.

But attorneys representing the residents deny they didn’t provide exhibits to the companies, Janice Savinis wrote in a Feb. 21 filing.

“There was no need for the plaintiffs to produce the documents to the defendants,” Savinis’ filing said. “The defendants have all of plaintiff’s exhibits. The defendants could not have stated objections to the exhibits unless the defendants had the exhibits.”

Charah’s attorneys responded Feb. 22 and maintained they don’t have a full set of the plaintiffs’ admitted exhibits, and that, during the process of moving exhibits into evidence, “plaintiffs moved certain exhibits around and removed pages from other exhibits.”

“Additionally, during the hours-long process of moving plaintiffs’ exhibits into evidence, defense counsel repeatedly objected to several of the exhibits because they were never provided with copies,” the Feb. 22 filing said.

Charah’s attorneys also ask that the residents be ordered to pay their attorneys’ fees “for this unnecessary motion practice relating to standard trial and appellate practices,” which McVay denied.

Reached Friday, David Raphael, an attorney representing Charah, said the company will let McVay’s order speak for itself. Attorneys representing the residents didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.

This week’s document fracas marks the second time in the case where attorneys have disagreed over exhibits and court procedures.

In November, attorneys sparred over an alleged “forgotten notebook” of pictures from a site visit that the plaintiffs’ attorneys sought to move into evidence on the last day of the trial. After a back-and-forth of filings from both sides, McVay allowed the notebook to be considered in his ruling.