UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

New Hampshire Ball Bearings, Inc. Case No. 20-cv-258-PB v. Opinion No.

GeoSierra Environmental, Inc. et al

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

On February 18, 2020, New Hampshire Ball Bearings, Inc.

(“NHBB”) filed a complaint against Hull & Associates, Inc.

(“Hull”) and GeoSierra Environmental, Inc. (“GeoSierra”) for

breach of contract, negligent misrepresentation, negligence,

violation of the New Hampshire Consumer Protection Act, and

breach of warranty. The complaint seeks to hold both defendants

liable for design and installation errors associated with a

permeable reactive barrier (“PRB”) that GeoSierra installed in

2014 at a superfund site controlled by NHBB.

Defendants have challenged the complaint in summary

judgment motions arguing that NHBB’s claims are barred by the

applicable statutes of limitations. For reasons I discuss

below, I grant defendants’ motions with respect to NHBB’s breach

of warranty claim but otherwise deny the motions because a

genuine dispute of material fact exists as to whether NHBB

discovered its claims more than three years before it filed its

complaint.

1 I. BACKGROUND

A. History of the Site

NHBB has operated a facility in the vicinity of what is now

the South Well Superfund Site (“Site”) since 1956. The Site is

located on 250 acres of the Contoocook River Valley in

Peterborough, New Hampshire. NHBB’s use of chlorinated solvents

at its facility resulted in the release of volatile organic

compounds (“VOCs”) into the groundwater beneath the facility.

In an attempt to address the groundwater contamination at

the Site, the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) issued a

Record of Decision (“ROD”) in 1989 requiring that NHBB install

source control remedies and manage the migration of

contaminants. Starting in 1990, Hull, a project development and

engineering company, began serving as a consultant for NHBB,

assisting with project management, engineering, and

hydrogeologic consulting for the Site.

Hull initially designed, oversaw installation, and

monitored implementation of a “pump and treat” system that

removed, treated, and then replaced contaminated groundwater at

the Site. By 2006, however, the system was no longer

functioning at “peak efficiency” due to the impact of

biofouling.1 The EPA urged NHBB to consider additional treatment

1 “Biofouling is the undesirable accumulation of microorganisms, plants, algae, arthropods, or mollusks to a surface . . . when

2 technologies to address the contaminated groundwater and, from

2006 to 2009, Hull conducted a Focused Feasibility Study (“FFS”)

to explore new treatment technologies. The FFS examined the

feasibility of a PRB,2 in addition to other treatment methods,

and Hull concluded that PRB technology could adequately treat

the groundwater within the EPA’s mandated parameters.

B. Installation of the PRB

Upon publication of Hull’s FFS, the EPA issued an Amended

Record of Decision (“AROD”) in April 2009, replacing its initial

1989 ROD. The AROD recommended the use of several new treatment

methods, including thermal treatment, bioremediation, and the

installation of a PRB. In response, Hull evaluated several PRB

designs, including patented technology by GeoSierra, a company

specializing in PRB installation. NHBB hired GeoSierra on

September 12, 2012, to produce a final design for their patented

“Azimuth” PRB. The Azimuth PRB was intended to reduce VOCs to

it is in contact with water for a period of time.” Kathleen D. Oppenheimer Berkey & Todd K. BenDor, A Comprehensive Solution to the Biofouling Problem for the Endangered Florida Manatee and Other Species,

, 421 (2012).

2 A PRB is a system intended to “chemically neutralize contaminants” found in groundwater. Def. GeoSierra Mot. for Summ. J., Doc. No. 35-1 at 5. In operation, a PRB is a permeable “underground wall” consisting of iron filings stretching “from bedrock to the top of the water table,” allowing groundwater to flow through the iron filings and treating the contaminants in the groundwater as it passes through. Doc. No. 35-1 at 1.

3 certain maximum contaminant levels (“MCLs”) and to provide a

long-term solution to groundwater protection at the Site.

Hull submitted the PRB’s final design for EPA approval,

which was granted on December 3, 2013. NHBB then contracted

with GeoSierra to construct the PRB as designed. In November

2014, GeoSierra completed installation of the PRB.

C. Efficacy of the PRB

On March 15, 2015, Hull began quarterly monitoring of

groundwater samples both upgradient and downgradient of the PRB

to analyze VOC concentrations at the Site. On December 15,

2015, Hull sent NHBB an email that discussed the groundwater

samples from March, June, and September 2015. The email noted

that “we have more weirdness in some of our key downgradient

wells, particularly the wells at depth along the centerline of

the plume.” Def. GeoSierra Ex. 7, Doc. No. 35-9 at 2. Hull

continued, “At some point, we should share these data with

GeoSierra. I wanted to run this by you, particularly if future

legal actions are pursued, I was unsure how we should handle the

sharing.” Doc. No. 35-9 at 2. Although the email did not

specify the source of the “weirdness,” the data itself shows

that PCE and TCE concentrations at certain wells downgradient of

the PRB were higher than they were at upgradient wells.3 This

3 For example, data from December 2015 at upgradient well PRB- FR50 showed PCE concentrations of 230 micrograms per liter,

4 “weirdness” was later discussed by Hull in its May 2016 report

to NHBB, where it stated that, while “the Total VOC

concentrations fail to demonstrate a clear trend . . . many of

the downgradient wells continue to exhibit PCE and TCE at

concentrations greater than the MCLs and in some cases, VOC

concentrations are higher in the downgradient wells compared to

their upgradient counterpart[s].” Def. GeoSierra Ex. 12, Doc.

No. 35-14 at 38.

In January and February 2016, Hull sent data about the

Site’s historical groundwater levels to GeoSierra and requested

an analysis and response. On February 3, 2016, NHBB requested

the latest quarterly test results of groundwater contaminants

from Hull. Hull replied that “the PRB data is similar in

magnitude as September.” Def. GeoSierra Ex. 9, Doc. No. 35-11

at 2. Five days later, Hull reached out to GeoSierra for its

“opinion [o]n what is happening (or not happening) as well as

whereas its downgradient counterpart well PRB-M50 showed PCE concentrations of 530 micrograms per liter. The same pattern was true at upgradient well PRB-GR50, which showed PCE concentrations of 24 micrograms per liter, with its downgradient counterpart well PRB-L50 showing 300 micrograms per liter. See Def. Hull Ex. 5, Doc. No. 34-6 at 65; Def. GeoSierra Ex. 12, Doc. No. 35-14 at 31. According to Hull’s 2016 report, “The downgradient wells of these pairs showed an approximate 103% and 245% increase in PCE concentration over the duration of 2015 in the results from PRB-M50 and PRB-L50, respectively.” Def. GeoSierra Ex. 12, Doc. No. 35-14 at 31.

5 your suggestions for corrective actions.” Def. GeoSierra Ex.

10, Doc. No. 35-12 at 2.

GeoSierra responded on March 7, 2016 with an email

providing its interpretation of the groundwater monitoring data.

The email, which was initially provided to Hull and later shared

with NHBB, concluded that “[t]here are and will continue to be

many dynamics occurring at the site, which have and may

contribute further to the elevated PCE concentrations measured

along the PRB[.]” Def. GeoSierra Ex. 11, Doc. No. 35-13 at 4.

One such “dynamic” was that existing extraction wells continued

to operate while the PRB was under construction and for several

months after construction had been completed. According to the

email, “the existing extraction wells provided limited hydraulic

containment during PRB installation, which flattened the

gradient and possibly reversed or stalled the PCE treatment

through the PRB.” Doc. No. 35-13 at 4. The email also noted

that “[t]he aquifer disruption from the installation of the NHBB

PRB and then shut off of the extraction wells raised the water

table a minimum of 1.5 feet and pushed PCE downgradient

resulting in the elevated concentrations that are now measured

in some of the wells.” Doc. No. 35-13 at 4. The email

concluded, “Because of the distance between the extraction wells

and PRB wells, we would expect the concentrations to remain high

for several more monitoring periods . . . .” Doc. No. 35-13 at

6 5. GeoSierra then advised NHBB that additional monitoring of

both upgradient and downgradient wells was recommended to

evaluate the PRB’s performance. Hull agreed with GeoSierra’s

assessment.

On October 6, 2017, Hull published a Work Plan, stating

that, based on the data and the location of the monitoring

wells, it was unclear if the PRB was sufficiently treating the

Site “as a result of reduced retention time resulting from the

increase in hydraulic gradients near the PRB,” if “back

diffusion” was “affecting downgradient well concentrations,” or

if insufficient time had passed to “provide adequate pore water

flushing between the wall and the downgradient monitoring

network.” Ex. I in Supp. Pl. Obj. to Mot. for Summ. J. (“Pl.

Ex.”), Doc. No. 39-11 at 4.

Monitoring results of VOC concentrations in the groundwater

remained inconclusive during this period. In response, NHBB

contracted with Hull to conduct a two-phase investigation of the

PRB’s performance, as required by the EPA. Phase I of the

investigation was intended to evaluate VOC concentrations and

geochemical conditions in the groundwater immediately upgradient

and downgradient from the PRB. After Phase I was completed in

March 2018, Hull concluded that “the results of routine

quarterly performance monitoring of the PRB . . . [have] been

inconclusive in demonstrating the efficacy of the barrier,” and

7 the EPA requested additional investigation of the PRB. Pl. Ex.

H, Doc. No. 39-10 at 6; Pl. Ex. J, Doc. No. 39-12 at 10-11.

Hull conducted Phase II of the investigation from September

to December 2018 to verify that the PRB was constructed in

accordance with the approved design and to identify “the

presence of any mineral or organic coating or other change in

iron mineralogy at select location from the PRB.” Pl. Ex. J,

Doc. No. 39-12 at 11. Phase II concluded that the PRB was not

constructed as designed, and that substantial flaws existed in

the installation and thickness of the PRB which “plausibly

explained” the “absence of expected reductions of VOC

concentration in groundwater.” Pl. Ex. J, Doc. No. 39-12 at 32.

After Hull’s Phase I investigation, NHBB retained

Environmental Resources Management (“ERM”), an environmental

consulting firm, “to assess the investigation, design,

installation, and effectiveness of the . . . PRB installed at

the Site.” Pl. Ex. D, Doc. No. 39-6 at 6. ERM disclosed its

conclusions to NHBB on March 5, 2019, identifying three

significant issues with the design, installation, and

performance of the PRB: (1) the PRB design was based on

incorrect data; (2) the installation method resulted in non-

uniform thickness of the PRB; and (3) “[a]s a result of being

under-designed and improperly installed, the final PRB is not

effectively reducing [VOC] concentrations in groundwater.” Pl.

8 Ex. D, Doc. No. 39-6 at 22-24. On March 17, 2019, NHBB sent a

letter to both Hull and GeoSierra asserting design and

installation flaws in the PRB. NHBB filed its complaint less

than a year later, on February 18, 2020.

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

Summary judgment is appropriate when the record reveals “no

genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is

entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P.

56(a); Tang v. Citizens Bank, N.A.,

(1st Cir.

2016). In this context, a “material fact” is one that has the

“potential to affect the outcome of the suit.” Cherkaoui v.

City of Quincy,

(1st Cir. 2017) (cleaned up). A

“genuine dispute” exists if a jury could resolve the disputed

fact in the nonmovant’s favor. Ellis v. Fidelity Mgmt. Trust

Co.,

(1st Cir. 2018).

The movant bears the initial burden of presenting evidence

that “it believes demonstrates the absence of a genuine issue of

material fact.” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett,

(1986); accord Flovac, Inc. v. Airvac, Inc.,

(1st Cir. 2016). Once the movant has properly presented such

evidence, the burden shifts to the nonmoving party to designate

“specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for

trial,” Celotex,

, and to “demonstrate that a

trier of fact could reasonably resolve that issue in its favor.”

9 Flovac,

(cleaned up). If the nonmovant fails to

adduce such evidence on which a reasonable factfinder could base

a favorable verdict, the motion must be granted. See

In

considering the evidence presented by either party, all

reasonable inferences are to be drawn in the nonmoving party’s

favor. See Theriault v. Genesis HealthCare LLC,

(1st Cir. 2018).

III. ANALYSIS

Hull and GeoSierra argue that NHBB’s contract, negligent

misrepresentation, negligence, and Consumer Protection Act

claims are barred by the three-year statute of limitations that

governs those claims. They also argue that NHBB’s breach of

warranty claim is barred by that claim’s four-year statute of

limitations. I begin by addressing defendants’ statute of

limitations arguments and end by assessing a separate challenge

that GeoSierra has made to Hull’s crossclaims for contribution

and indemnity.

A. Contract, Negligent Misrepresentation, Negligence, and Consumer Protection Act Claims

The three-year statute of limitations that applies to most

of NHBB’s claims is subject to a “discovery” exception that

tolls the statute until the plaintiff knew or reasonably should

have known of its injury and the causal connection between the

injury and the defendant’s conduct. Kelleher v. Marvin Lumber &

10 Cedar Co.,

(2005) (citing Big League Entm’t

v. Brox Indus.,

(2003)). The discovery rule

is not intended to toll the limitations period until the full

extent of the plaintiff’s injury becomes known. Furbush v.

McKittrick,

(2003). Rather, the rule tolls

the limitations period until “the plaintiff could reasonably

discern that he suffered some harm caused by the defendant’s

conduct.”

The plaintiff “need not be certain of this

causal connection; the possibility that it existed will suffice

to obviate the protections of the discovery rule.” Beane v.

Dana S. Beane & Co., P.C.,

(2010). Although

the statute of limitations is an affirmative defense that the

defendant must prove, the plaintiff has the burden of proving

that an otherwise barred claim is saved by the discovery rule.

Lamprey v. Britton Constr., Inc.,

(2012).

The parties agree that GeoSierra installed the allegedly

defective PRB in 2014, well more than three years before NHBB

filed its complaint. The issue then is whether NHBB’s claims

are saved from the statute of limitations by the discovery rule.

Defendants argue that they are entitled to summary judgment on

this issue because the undisputed evidence demonstrates that

NHBB knew or reasonably should have known that it had been

injured by the defendants at the latest in March 2016, when Hull

informed it of GeoSierra’s March 7 email. I disagree.

11 The First Circuit was presented with a similar problem in

Cambridge Plating Co. v. Napco, Inc. See

(1st Cir. 1993). In that case, a wastewater treatment system

purchaser, Cambridge Plating Company, appealed the grant of

summary judgment for the wastewater treatment system seller on

statute of limitations grounds.

. Cambridge Plating

experienced unsatisfactory results from its wastewater treatment

system a year after installation, and the seller suggested that

system operations were the likely cause.

. Cambridge

Plating took steps to rectify operations issues, including

replacing the system operators, implementing other changes

suggested by the seller, and consulting with an independent

expert who also recommended operational changes.

However,

after the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority fined

Cambridge Plating for regulatory violations, Cambridge Plating

consulted with a second expert who concluded that design flaws,

installation errors, and substandard engineering practices were

responsible for the unsatisfactory results.

The First Circuit concluded that Cambridge Plating had the

correct interpretation of the Massachusetts discovery rule. As

the court noted when reaching this conclusion: “The inquiry

. . . must focus on the reasonableness of what the company

actually did. If the company acted diligently, but still

reasonably failed to learn of its cause of action, the discovery

12 rule would continue to delay the limitations clock.”

.

The court concluded that “if Cambridge Plating acted reasonably

diligently when it hired the first expert, the fact that that

expert failed to discover the system’s defects must be

sufficient to toll the statute of limitations.”

Here, the record reveals that NHBB was aware as early as

December 2015 that samples drawn from some of the wells

downgradient of the PRB were showing concentrations of VOCs that

were above MCLs and higher than their upgradient counterparts.

What the company did not know, however, was whether the

“weirdness” of these results was indicative of a problem with

the PRB. To investigate the problem, NHBB turned to Hull, its

longstanding consultant, and Hull asked GeoSierra for its views.

GeoSierra’s March 7 email responding to Hull’s inquiries

discussed the inconsistent results and speculated about several

potential causes, including changing site conditions, the

location of the monitoring wells, and contamination downgradient

of the PRB. GeoSierra also provided recommendations:

Because of the distance between the extraction wells and PRB wells, we would expect the concentrations to remain high for several more monitoring periods in both the upgradient PRB wells and hopefully to a lesser extent in the downgradient well. In order to further evaluate site conditions, continued quarterly groundwater sampling and groundwater geochemical and parameters is recommended.

13 Def. GeoSierra Ex. 11, Doc. No. 35-13 at 5. Hull, NHBB’s

consultant, agreed with this recommendation.

It is important to bear in mind when considering the

parties’ arguments that none of GeoSierra’s suggested causes of

the “weirdness” in the groundwater sampling data involved the

PRB’s design or installation, and none of GeoSierra’s

recommendations involved changes to the PRB itself. It is also

apparent from the record that GeoSierra did not identify any of

the issues NHBB raises in this lawsuit, namely that design and

installation flaws in the PRB itself prevented it from operating

as intended.

Despite this, the defendants argue that the report’s

inability to pinpoint a cause of the data’s “weirdness” should

have indicated to NHBB that a larger problem existed and that

GeoSierra’s recommendations, as the PRB’s designer and

installer, were untrustworthy. However, as in Cambridge Plating

Co., defendants’ conclusions and recommendations appear “far

less portentous,” as neither Hull nor GeoSierra suggested that

the testing results were indicative of a defect in the PRB and

both defendants were recommending additional testing. See

.

When the problems persisted despite suggestions to continue

monitoring, NHBB conducted a two-phase inquiry into the PRB in

2017 and, in September 2018, hired an independent consultant to

14 investigate potential issues. The gap in time between

GeoSierra’s March 2016 email and NHBB’s 2017 decision to

investigate the PRB would be troubling if it were not the direct

result of GeoSierra’s advice to wait and see if the data

resolved on its own, and Hull’s suggestion in a 2015 report that

two years of monitoring would be necessary to understand the

efficacy of the PRB. See Pl. Ex. F, Doc. No. 39-8 at 21

(“[L]ong-term monitoring of the PRB will be implemented on a

quarterly basis for the first two years followed by semi-annual

sampling.”).

Although GeoSierra and Hull were not independent

consultants, NHBB had worked with Hull since 1990, and with

GeoSierra since 2012, and had relied on both companies

throughout their contracts to provide accurate advice about the

Site, treatment options, and the efficacy of the PRB. See

Cambridge Plating Co.,

(asking whether the first

expert consulted was “competent to evaluate the system” and

“[w]ould even a well qualified expert necessarily have uncovered

the problem based on what he knew about the system at that

point”). It was not unreasonable for NHBB to rely on their

expert advice when it came to the question of the PRB’s efficacy

as they were the parties who understood the Site and this

specific PRB the best.

15 The first indication that the PRB itself was responsible

for the groundwater sampling results arguably occurred, at the

earliest, in October 2017, when NHBB received Hull’s 2017 report

stating that one potential explanation for the inconsistent data

was “insufficient treatment from the PRB.” Pl. Ex. I, Doc. No.

39-11 at 4. Because NHBB filed its complaint within three years

of this date, the evidence in the record is sufficient to permit

a conclusion that the discovery rule saves NHBB’s contract,

negligent misrepresentation, negligence, and Consumer Protection

Act claims.

B. Implied Warranty Claim

The four-year statute of limitations that governs NHBB’s

breach of warranty claim states:

A cause of action accrues when the breach occurs, regardless of the aggrieved party’s lack of knowledge of the breach. A breach of warranty occurs when tender of delivery is made, except that where a warranty explicitly extends to future performance of the goods and discovery of the breach must await the time of such performance the cause of action accrues when the breach is or should have been discovered.

-A:2-725(2).

GeoSierra argues that NHBB’s breach of warranty claim is

barred by this statute because it completed installation of the

PRB in 2014, more than four years before the present suit was

16 filed in 2020.4 NHBB counters that GeoSierra did not tender

delivery of the PRB until the end of a two-year monitoring

period required by the EPA. Accordingly, NHBB argues that the

statute of limitations on its breach of warranty claim did not

begin to run until late 2016 when the two year monitoring period

expired. I am unpersuaded by NHBB’s argument.

The parties agree that installation of the PRB was

completed in 2014. The complaint, however, makes no mention of

a two-year monitoring period, nor does NHBB point to any term in

its contract with GeoSierra in which a two-year monitoring

period was agreed upon. See Carll v. McClain Indus., Inc.,

,

, at *3 (D.N.H. June 12, 2001) (“Tender

of delivery is normally determined by the delivery terms of the

contract.”). Instead, NHBB points to a 2015 document entitled

“Long Term Monitoring and Operations & Maintenance Plan,”

produced by Hull and approved by the EPA, which states that

quarterly monitoring of the PRB will occur for two years. See

Pl. Ex. F, Doc. No. 39-8 at 2, 21. NHBB, however, has not shown

that delivery of the PRB was incomplete after GeoSierra

installed it in 2014. Nor has it identified any explicit or

implicit warranty or service agreement between the parties that

4 GeoSierra assumes that the PRB is a “good” as defined in New Hampshire’s version of the Uniform Commercial Code. I, too, make this assumption for purposes of analysis when evaluating GeoSierra’s statute of limitations argument.

17 would extend this delivery period. Further, NHBB has not

pointed to any caselaw that supports its argument that a

warranty or service agreement of this kind would shift the date

of delivery to the end of that warranty or service agreement

period even if such an agreement had been identified.

NHBB argues in the alternative that equitable tolling

applies in this case because GeoSierra recommended additional

monitoring to assess the PRB and it, therefore, engaged in a

repair of the PRB upon which NHBB relied. Again, I disagree.

“[T]he First Circuit [has] concluded that equitable tolling is

inapplicable to implied-warranty claims governed by RSA 382–A:2–

725.” Begley v. Windsor Surry Co.,

,

, at *8 (D.N.H. Mar. 19, 2018) (citing Lockheed Martin

Corp. v. RFI Supply, Inc.,

(1st Cir. 2006)).

Although the New Hampshire Supreme Court has yet to explicitly

rule on this issue, “in light of the First Circuit’s decision

and the absence of any intervening state authority to the

contrary, this court considers it appropriate to follow the

‘Erie guess’ of the First Circuit.”

(citing Potomac Ins.

Co. v. Woods, No. 1:95–cv–469,

, at *5 (E.D. Tex.

July 22, 1996)); see also Norris v. Atrium Medical Corp.,

,

, at *2 (D.N.H. Sept. 12, 2019) (citing

Begley,

, at *8) (“[E]quitable tolling . . .

do[es] not apply to breach of implied warranties claims.”).

18 Because NHBB has failed to show that the PRB was in fact

delivered within the applicable statute of limitations or that

the limitations period may be equitably tolled, GeoSierra’s

motion for summary judgment as to NHBB’s claim for breach of

warranty is granted.

C. Hull’s Crossclaims for Contribution and Indemnity

GeoSierra argues that Hull’s crossclaims for indemnity and

contribution cannot succeed because they are derivative of

NHBB’s claims and those claims are barred by the applicable

statutes of limitations. Because I have rejected defendants’

arguments that most of NHBB’s claims are time-barred, this

argument is a nonstarter.

GeoSierra also argues that Hull’s crossclaim for

contribution is not ripe because NHBB has not yet succeeded on

any of its claims against Hull. “[A] pre-judgment claim for

contribution remains premature until the contribution claimant

has discharged the common liability.” Hardie v. Crecco,

,

, at *3 (D.N.H. Mar. 27, 2014). The

only exception to this rule is “if and only if the plaintiff in

the principal action agrees,” in which case “a defendant seeking

contribution may bring an action in contribution prior to the

resolution of the plaintiff’s principal action, and such action

shall be consolidated for all purposes with the principal

action.” Patriot Ins. Co. v. Tri State Hood & Duct, LLC, 2019

,

, at *2 (D.N.H. Nov. 20, 2019) (quoting

:7–g(IV)(c)) (cleaned up). Because

NHBB has not agreed that such an action may be consolidated,

Hull’s crossclaim for contribution is not ripe and must be

dismissed without prejudice.

IV. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, I deny defendants’ motions for

summary judgment with respect to NHBB’s claims for breach of

contract (Counts I and IV), negligent misrepresentation (Counts

II and VII), negligence (Count V), and violations of the New

Hampshire Consumer Protection Act (Count VI). GeoSierra’s

motion for summary judgment with respect to NHBB’s breach of

warranty claim (Count III) is granted. GeoSierra’s challenge to

Hull’s crossclaim for indemnification is denied, but I dismiss

Hull’s crossclaim for contribution without prejudice.

SO ORDERED.

/s/ Paul J. Barbadoro Paul J. Barbadoro United States District Judge August 27, 2021

cc: Brian J. Bouchard, Esq. Robert R. Lucic, Esq. Barbara Brady, Esq. Jacquelyn Beatty, Esq. Laura L. Carroll, Esq. Robert Radcliffe, Esq. Cheryl A. Waterhouse, Esq. Jon C. Cowen, Esq. Michael E. Coghlan, Esq.

20