You are correct. I checked the online docket. After filing various jury instructions, jury interrogatories, and objections to same, the Defendants have filed briefs in support of a Motion for Directed Verdict. No response from Plaintiff ETP yet; however, that would not be unusual because more often than not these things are argued orally, not via briefs.
However, given that the Court denied all of the Defendants arguments contained in their Motions for Summary Judgment as "meritless," it seems highly unlikely the Court will grant the directed verdict motions. Possible, yes; likely, no. Thus, the case will probably go to the jury at some point.
Sorry for the confusion. When I originally checked the docket, the directed verdict motions had not yet been posted by the Clerk of Courts yet.
Perhaps. The equities of the situation favor ETP. It is as basic as making a deal and going back on your word.
The other thing is that the trial judge, in one of his orders, apparently denied the defendants' motion for certain evidence from FERC to be admitted. That evidence, according to defendants, would have established that ETP's damages are lower because the amounts that could be charged are lower.
If the defendants are arguing damages should be lower (not just about "we're not liable because..."), that's a bad sign for the defendants. If you're getting to the point of talking about damage amounts with jurors, many jurors believe that's a tacit admission of liability and it is not whether you owe, but how much.