Opinion ID: 792212
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Work Related to Other Defendants

Text: 81 The District Court found that ICO could only be compensated by Honeywell for time spent by ICO's attorneys in furtherance of ICO's successful RCRA claim against Honeywell. 336 F.Supp.2d at 390. Honeywell contends that the court failed to exclude six charges ICO's attorneys claimed for work related to other defendants in the action. ICO concedes that Honeywell is correct with respect to five of the charges. Our judgment will reflect that concession and hence we need deal only with the sixth, which involves two in limine motions filed by W.R. Grace & Co., one of the defendants in the action, see supra note 2. ICO argues that both of these motions, if granted, would have weakened ICO's case against Honeywell, and that it was therefore justified in seeking reimbursement from Honeywell. 82 For instance, Grace moved to limit the evidence that could be used at trial relating to soil clean up standards; ICO alleges that such a limitation would have weakened its case against Honeywell. If true, ICO's contention would be justified. But it does not appear from the record that the District Court considered whether the time spent contesting either motion was truly in furtherance of ICO's successful RCRA claim against Honeywell. For this reason, we will vacate and remand the award with respect to these motions so that the District Court may make such a determination.