dismissed their claims and their requests for injunctive relief

Case 1:04-cv-08825-JFK-HBP Document 118 Filed 06/26/12 Page 30 of 56Humphreys and Glasgow.” (Handley Decl., Ex. ZZ at 1). Indeed,the design report packages provided by UCC did “not incorporatefeatures unique to India.” (Handley Decl., Ex. MM at UCC12135;see Handley Decl., Ex. OO)). Thus, UCIL was responsible for“modify[ing] the process, the equipment, and the engineeringstandards as necessary to adapt the process design to theequipment and materials available in India.” (Handley Decl.,Ex. MM at UCC12143). While UCIL agreed to provide changenotices to UCC for design modifications, UCC’s participation waslimited to “major changes” in design aspects such as plantcapacity, raw material specifications, and materials ofconstruction. (Id.). Moreover, although the parties providedfor UCC’s review of design changes, there is no evidence thatsuch review and approval ever occurred, particularly since UCILdeveloped its own CO, 1-naphthol, and Sevin processes. Anyother technical assistance that UCC provided to UCIL wasperformed in accordance with a 1973 Technical ServicesAgreement, pursuant to which UCC agreed to offer training andinstructions for technical personnel, for a fee and only “uponthe request of UCIL.” (Handley Decl., Ex. JJ at UCC12006).Finally, there is no allegation that UCC’s review of designchanges or provision of technical services was negligentlyperformed or in any way contributed to the creation ofpollution.30