returned over $180,000 of her budget in an effort to reduce costs. (12/17/09 Tr. at 115.) Third, this litigation has actually resulted in cost savings for the District, since as a result of the efforts of the Court, the plaintiffs, and the Special Masters, many class members and DDA customers have been put on the waiver, thereby shifting costs from the District to the federal government. {Id. at 27-28.) This effort, while now reaching fruition {see supra p. 161), was started long before this administration and thus can hardly be credited only to the efforts of the current leadership. Fourth, as Judge Hogan held, the costs of monitoring are not properly considered to be obstacles. LaShawn, 701 F.Supp.2d at 101-2, 2010 WL 1270202, at *14 (citing Agostini, 521 U.S. at 216, 117 S.Ct. 1997 (<HOLDING>)). Fifth, defendants do not address the impact
holding that investigatory costs are considered costs of response under cercla holding that the fact that compliance with the contract would involve greater expense than anticipated due to a steel strike did not excuse performance holding that anticipated costs of compliance with an injunctive order are not changed circumstances under rufo recognizing that an order denying a motion to modify a family court order where the motion is based on changed factual or legal circumstances is appealable as a special order after final judgment holding that substantial compliance with notice is sufficient