ML19294B798
| ML19294B798 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Allens Creek File:Houston Lighting and Power Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 02/05/1980 |
| From: | Copeland J BAKER & BOTTS |
| To: | Jeffrey Scott AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8003060046 | |
| Download: ML19294B798 (2) | |
Text
..
DOCKET NUMBER PROD. L UTIL Fh- "Y SAKER & SOTTS ON C s C. sta2a M cV STo N. T Cx AS 77oo2
- M O N C M 22 9 123 4 yaswiNGTog c r r'C C tCLCX 76 27?9 1701
- C N N S Y Lva NI A Av C.. N w T C' CCO M MU NICATION w AS =. GTO N. 3 C. 20cc e -
0 (7:3i 22e-.s22 Ou sten TCLCowoN C l2C2! 457.$$C Q (2C2) 417 = $ $ 31 W ASMINGTON. D. C.
fu
\\
CERTIFIED MAIL February 5, 1980 h
FITURN FICEIPT P200ESTED 6
S L2 Q@N 7
v g
Mr. James M. Scott 9
f 8302 Albacore V
t?
Houston, Texas 77074 m
Dear Mr. Scott:
We are in receipt of TexPirg's answers to HL&P's Fourth Set of Interrogatories and we have determined that additional information should be provided by TexPirg in response to the interrogatories.
I am writing this letter in an effort to resolve our concerns informally.
In its order of December 4, 1979, the Board indi-cated that we were entitlad to have TexPirg identify the person or persons at TexPirg with technical knowledge in the subject areas covered by each of TexPirg's contentions.
In its Fourth Interrogatories, Applicant specifically asked TexPirg to identify the persen or persons having technical knowledge of the contention in question.
This question was propounded in Interrogatory Nos. A22 (e), 312 (e ), Cl3 (e), D7(e), F1(e),
G10(e), H16(e), I9 (e), J3(e), and K11(e).
TexPirg answered
'that it had not identified anyone who would be a witness on the contention; however, we do not consider this answer to be responsive to the question.
Accordingly, we would like you to designate the person at TexPirg who can provi~de the technical knowledge for TexPirg on each of its contentions covered b; these interrogatories.
The problem described above is cenpounded by the fact that in answur to Interrogatory Nos. GB, H14, I7 and K9, TexPirg indicated that both Mr. Doherty*and Mr. Johnson provided the substantive answers to each interrogatory in subparts G, H,
I and K of this set of interrogatories.
As you r:nov, Tex?irg has previcusly disclaimed any a thcrity D
80030600 %
g.
-m eAKsm & acTTs Mr. James M. Scott Page 2 on the part of Mr. Dohrrty to respond to discovery requests for Tex?irg.
As answered, there is no way to know which parts of the interrogatories, if any, were actually answered by Mr. Johnson.
This is highly important if Mr. Johnson is to be designated as the person at TexPirg with technical knowledge of these contentions.
Accordingly, we request that TexPirg indicate which parts of each interrogatory in l
subparts J, H, I and K were actually answered by Mr. Johnson.
Finally, TexPirg has obj ected to Interrogatory Nos. A18, 39, H12 and Il5 on the grounds that Applicant is seeking production of (1) pre-filed testimony, (2) work-papers, and (3) work product.
Applicant's request is not limited to preparation of testimony, rather the question calls for any work done by TexPirg whether or not in prepara-tion for testimony.
Indeed, TexPirg has answered that it has not identified any witnesses to testify on the conten-tions in question so we do not see how documents in Tex?irg's possession could fall under the label of pre-filed testimony or workpapers.
In any event, Applicant is entitled to discovery of a witnesses' workpapers, including drafts of te st hnony.
There simply are no grounds for such an objec-tion.
TexPirg's reference to " work product" is hcpelessly vagra.
What is the nature of this objection?
If there are docunents that are covered by these requests Tex?irg must list those documents and specify the grounds for assertion of privilege.
Applicant's instructicns clearly called for this step to be done.
Please call me after you have reviewed this letter and let me know what your position will be with respect to these concerns.
Very truly yours, N
Ab' J.
G.egory Copeland JGC/66 cc:
All parties
%