|This document is available in two formats: this web page (for browsing content) and PDF (comparable to original document formatting). To view the PDF you will need Acrobat Reader, which may be downloaded from the Adobe site. For an official signed copy, please contact the Antitrust Documents Group.|
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
OF THE COURT'S SEPTEMBER 28, 2000,
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO REVIEW
Plaintiff United States hereby moves, pursuant to D. Kan. Rule 7.3, for reconsideration of of the Court's Order Granting Defendants' Motion to Review Magistrate Judge Humphreys' decision of June 13, 2000 (filed September 28, 2000) ("September 28 Order"). The United States respectfully requests that the Court modify its September 28 Order to correct the mistaken implication that Professor Hovenkamp revised his treatise, PHILLIP E. AREEDA & HERBERT HOVENKAMP, ANTITRUST LAW: AN ANALYSIS OF ANTITRUST PRICIPLES AND THEIR APPLICATION (Supp. 1999), after consulting with the government by "adding a footnote which suggesed for the first time that the entire cost of an airplane (in addition to depreciation and obsolescence) should be considered a variable cost." (Emphasis added).
In support of this Motion, Plaintiff files its accompanying Memorandum and the Declaration of Herbert Hovenkamp.
Date: October 21, 2000
Plaintiff United States