ML19319C308
| ML19319C308 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Davis Besse, Perry  |
| Issue date: | 04/25/1975 |
| From: | Reynolds W CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING CO., SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE, TOLEDO EDISON CO. |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8002130830 | |
| Download: ML19319C308 (31) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:_
' April 25, 1975-
^
q ,--- s UIIITED STATES OF' AMERICA NUCLEAR RECULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety'and Licensing Board
-In the Matter of )
- .. )
-THE TOLEDO EDI.90H-COMPANY and )
THE CLEVELAUD , ELECTRIC ILLUMIllATII!G ) COMPAHY ) (Davis-Desse Nuclear Power Station, _ ) Docket Nos. 50-346A Unit 1) ) 50-440A
) 50-441A THE CLEVELAUD ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING )
COMPAHY, ET AL., ) (Perry.Muclear Power Plant, ) Units 1 and 2) ) APPLICAUTS' BRIEF TO THE SPECIAL MASTER IN SUPPORT OF THEIR CLAIMS OF PRIVILEGE AS TO CERTAIM COCUMENTS REQUESTED FOR PRODUCTION
- 1. Pursuant to the Order of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board antered on December 10, 1974, all claims of privilege asserted by the parties hereto with respect to i documents requested for production were referred to a Master, the Honorable Marshall E. Miller, Esquire, for.his review on the basis of an examination, in camera, of the material said to be entitled to special' protection from the discovery re- -
quests. -By agreement:of-Applicants, Duquesne LiG51t Cor.pany ("Duqucano"), The Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company ("CET"), ' the Department of Justice (" Department") and the Ciby l of-Cleveland (" City") -- which are the only parties in this pro-cceding involved in the dctormination to be made by the Master -- 3oosis02$ P A
,.,--..---,aw , . - - - ,
m. briefs in support of the respective claims of privilege are to be filed on April 25, 1975, with responsive briefs to follow on 11ay 2,1975 Duquesne and CEI submit that the docu$Eents for uhich they seek protection fit within either the attorney-client privilege or, as to some of CEI's desig-nated documents, the attorney's work product privilege. Ac-cordingly, the designated material has properly been with-held from production in accordance with the accepted prin-ciples set forth below. A. Attorney-Client Privilege
- 2. Perhaps the most succinct definition of the attorney-client privilege has been provided by Professor Wigmore in the folleuing statement taken from 8 Wigmore, Evidence 52202, at p. 554 (McNaughton Rev. Ed. 1961):
(1) Where legal advice of any kind is sought, (2) from a professional legal adviser in his capacity as such, (3) the communications relating to that purpose, (4) made in confidence, (5) by the client, (3) are at his in-stance permanently protected, (7) from disclosure by himself or by the legal adviscr, (8) except the privilege be waived. l 3 The policy considerations underlying this special protection to be afforded to confidential communications are deeply embedded in cur jurisprudence. There is the private interest to be served by promot,ing to the fullect extent pos-I
sible the " freedom of consultation of legal advisers by clients" (Wigmore, ginra, 62292, at p. 554). Similarly, there is a legitimate public interest safeguarded by the priv'ilege in "that claims and disputes which may lead to litigation can most justly and expeditiously be handled by practiced experts, namely lawyers, and * *
- such ex-perts can act effectively only if they are fully advised of the facts by the parties whom they represent" (McCormick, Evidence, 987, at p. 175 (2d ed. 1972)).
- 4. This basic goncept -- of encouraging open dis-course between a client and his attorney with regard to con-fidential matters deemed relevant to the purposes for which legal representation has been obtained -- is one which has been generally recogniced as being no less applicable in the context of a. relationship between a corporation and its house counsel than uhere the privilege is asserted by a company having only outside counsel.1/ In United States v. United Shce Machinery Corp., 89 F. supp. 357 (D. Mass. 1950), for example, a decision which is still regarded by many as the most definitive judicial pronouncement in the area, the federal district court stated (89 F. Supp. at 360):
On the record as it nou stands, the apparent factual differences be-tween these house counsel and outside 1/ is is well escablished that a corporation is entitled to invoh0 the protection of the attorney-client privilce;e as fully an any indiv! sinal. See luaiinnt{ !h n' n e r.: , Inc. v American Gan Acnociarian, 320 F.2d 31/1 (7th Cir. 1963).
+ ,
counsel are that the former are paid annual salaries, occupy offices in the corporation's building, and are employces rather than independent contractors. These are not sufficient differences to distinguish the two types of counsel for purposes of the attorr.ey-client privilege. And this
'is apparent when attention is paid to the realities of modern ccrporate law practice. The type of service per-formed by house counsel is substan-tially like that performsd by many members of the largo urban law firms.
The distinction is chiefly that the house counsel gives advf.co to one regular client, the outside unsel to several regular clients._2 5 Thus, analys'is of the present claims of attorney-client privilege can essentially proceed along the same lines here whether the corporate confidence was entrusted to house counsel or to outside counsel. In either case, in order for the protection sought to be available, the attorney involved must have been acting at the relevant time in a legal capacity -- in the sense that the client was relying on him "for the pur-pose of securing primarily either (1) an opinion on law, or (ii) legal services, or (iii) assistance in some legal pro-ceeding * * *" (United Shoe, suora, 89 F. Supp. at 358).
- 6. While this standard uould exclude from a claim of privilego an atterney's "ccmmunications involving business,
?/~ AccaN: :. '.t ra v Hocn , 302 F.2d 686 (10th Cir. 1968);
Socrr*, R1nsi Corn, v Int ern:n.icnn 2 Dis i ne ,c Machina Corn . , h 'i F .lt. D . 'b7 (D. D e .L . 1960); :. el co J..mtu'acturi ne Cman:tny v Elco Ccerovatian, 44 F.R.D. 24~iD. Minn. 1%3); !!:uiso V H<4 ail C Pqp i t e e - L; ty,, 5 8 P . R . D . 425 (E.D. l'a . 1973). 9
_5_ rather than legal, advice * * *" (Jack Winter, Inc. v Kornton Co., Inc. 54 F.R.D. 44, 47 (N.D. Cal. 1971), it is also well established that "the privilege of nondisclosure is not lost merely because relevant, nonlegal considerations are stated in a communication which also includes legal ad-Vice" (United Shoo, sunra, 89 F. Supp. at 361). And see Colton v Unfted States, 306 F.2d 633, 637 (2d cir. 1962). As the United Shoe decision clearly recognizes (id. at 360): The modern lawyer invariably advises his client upon not only what is per-missible but what is desirable. And it is in thd public interest that the lawyer should regard himself as more than predictor of legal consequences. His duty to society as well as to his client involves many relevant social, economic, political and philosophical considerations. 7 In this regard, there is no blanket rule cov-cring what types of communications are entitled to protection. On the one hand, it is clear that a client's request for legal advice with respect to specific confidential information, and his lawyer's responsive comments on the legal considerations involved, are entitled to protection from disclosure. See Natta v Hogan, suora, 392 F.2d at 692-693; nuckley v vidal, 50 F.R.D. 271, 275 (S.D.N.Y. 1970). On the other hand, as accurately observed in Radlant Burnern, Inc. v Amat'ican ann Association, 320 P.2d 314 (7th Cir. 1956): i i t i
.C.
Certainly, the privilege would never be available to allow a corpo-ration to funnel its papers and docu-ments into the hands of its lawyers. for custodial purposes and thereby avoid disclosure. Likewise it seems well settled that the requisite pro-feasional relationship is not estab-- liched when the client seeks personal and business advice as opposed to legal assistance.
- 8. This leaves, of course, a large " gray area" between the two poles outlined abo'te which requires that a fact determination be made as to each particular communica-tion on a document-by-docupent basis. See, e_.g., Radiant Burners, Inc. v American Gas Association, supra, 320 F.2d at 324; American Cyanamid Comnany v !!ercules Power Company, 211 F. Supp. 85, 89 (D. Del. 1962).3/ Duquesne and CEI have undertaken a careful screening of the material submitted to the Master for i_n_ camera examination in ari effort to insure that the claim of privilege has been asserted only with re-spect to those communications made by the client or the lawyer (1) in the context of a continuing confidential relationship between the company and its house counsel, acting as such, ,
or outside counsel, (2) on matters known by both parties to l be of a sensitive nature which the client does not wish to be diaclosed, and (3) with respect to which legal advice is 1 1 3/ This approach la favolc<1 by the commentators. See Haininr.er, Tim At torrey-Client. "ri vi lere A: It Relabes To EP."D1Pn hj orm. 93 111. F .J . 370,~~~Ed 0 (Y9i.$ ) ; lii.:;on , yhy A t-t c ritq/-C 1 ;e n t l'oi vi 1 e y An Apolied To CnepornLionn, 6 'faie L...'. ')pj, 073-973 (199d . 8
^
being (or han been) cought directly, or, alternati vely, with recpect to which there is a clear underctanding between the client and the lawyer bac^d on the nature of the subject mat-ter (i.e., pending litigation involving the company), and the octablichad practice with regard thereto, that continuous legal councelling on that matter 's desired by the client. 9 In order to accertain whether communications of this sort are indeed entitled to protection, it is, of course, incuubent upon the Master to determine whether the particular communication was scught and provided in the cori text of a bona fide attorney-client relationship. As the in-terrogatory ansvers of Duquesne and CEI reveal, such is indeed the case with respect to each document listed.
- 10. Looking first at the " attorney" side of the re-lationship, the "in house" lawyers identified in the interrog-atory answers as either senders or recipients of correspondence claimed as privileged, while perhaps not an essential pre-requisite to asserting the claim (Georgia Pacific Plywood Co.,
Inc. v United Stated Plywood Coro., 18 F.R.D. 463, 465 (S.D.U.Y. 1956), were at the relevant time, and are now, members of their respective State bars. Although some of these in-dividua]3 had other corporate rennonalbilities for.which they l/ l Is in accumed that thone individuals identified ln the int Urrogatory answers na outside counsel clearly qualify as
" attorneys" fer purra::ec of invoking the pri.vilege, 30 that, an to them, t.he er :ential inqui.ry to be made coen only to the nat:ure of the communication made.
_8_ had at times been given dictinct corporate titles, the docu-monts in question have been carefully screened to incure that only their communications as attorneys, acting as such, have been included among the material withheld from pro-duction.
- 11. In this connection, it should be noted that all of the identified "in house" counsel at Duquesne and CEI act primarily "as attorneys giving legal advice, * *
- not as business advisors or officers of [the client] * * *"
(United Shoe, sunna, 89 F. Supp. at 359). This is to be dis-tinguished from the situation which was found to exist in United States v Vehi~ular c Parking, Inc., Ltd., 52 F. Supp. 751, 753-754 (D. Del. 1943), for example, where the claim of privilege was denied be Auce the attorney was functioning essentially as " active business manager." And compare United States v Roser. stein, 474 F.2d 705, 714 (2nd Cir. 1973) (legally-trained European agents were " puppets" for various min.cterial functions); Lowv v Commic3ioner, 262 F.2d 609, 811 (2d Cir. 1959) ("hlere the attorney and his client are engaged ,. jn business dealings, as was the case here, the attorney-client rule docs not apply"). Also inapposite in the context of the
\
present proceeding is any analogy to the distinct situation discussei in United Sh.,e_ involving patent specialista. As the court there observed ( M. at 360, emphasis in original):
_9_ Grist which comes to their mill has a bicher percentage of business con-tent than legal content. Unlike the independent lawyer, they are expected to have at the forefront of their
. considerations, buciness j udgment, corporate policy and technical manu-facturinc aspects of the shoe machinery industry * * *. Therefore, quite apart from the nature of any specific communication, the rl l ationship of a perscn in the patent deparcment to the corporation is not that of attorney and client.
Accord: American Cyanamid Co. v Hercules Power Co., supra, 211 F. Supp at 85 (concerned solely patent employees); Jack Winter, Inc. v Koratron C6., Inc., sunra, 54 F.R.D. at 47 (limited to legally trained patent experts).E! By contrast, referring once again to the language in United Shoe (89 F. Supp. at 300), "[t]he type of service performed by house counsel # # *" for Duquesne and CEI "* *
- is substantially like that per-formed by many menbers of the large urban law firms."
- 12. On the other side of the relationship, it is readily admitted that not every employee of a corporate client is entitled to the protection afforded by the attorney-client 1
privilege simply by virtue ,f his employment. In this regard, , restriction was placed on the definition of the term " client" in the corperato context by the decision in City of Philadclphia v Westinchouro F.lectric Corg., 210 F. Supp. 433 (E.D. Pa. 1962), mandamus and prohibition denied sub nom. General Electri.c Co. Y l 1/ See also the earlier deciclon in this case, Jnck Winter, 50 F.R.D. 225, 22R (N.D. Cal. 1970). Inc. v 1:oratron Co., ! O .
- s Kirknatrick, 312 F.2d 742 (14. Cir.), certiorari denied, 372 U.S. 943 (1963). Formulating what has since been re-Terred to as the " control group" test, the court t'here stated (210 F. Supp. at 485) that the attorney-client privilege would be available to a corporation with respect to confi-dential ccmmunications made to counsel b its employees, u *
- if the employee miding the c c:.'.m u n i c a t i o n , of whatever rank he may be, is in a position to control or even to take a sub-stantial part in a decision about any action which the corporation may take O M n or if he is an authorized member of a body or group which has that authority * * *"$!
13 With regard to the documents of Duquesne and CEI which have been submitted to the Master, the interrogatory answers demonstrate that, even under the above standard, the communications by and to the identified employees of those companies are entitled to protection. The determinative fac-tor in making this judgment is not, of course, an individual employee's corporate title, but rather his functional re-sponsibility with regacd to the particular corporate action .. being considered in light of the confidential information which the employee has provided to the attorney.7/ Thus, in of Anu see .'.umn v. nocan , sunra, 392 F.2d at 692;
!!cn,'y .:e ? l , Inc. v itner alrerafn ca., 50 F. !( . D . 117 (M.D. Pa.
19 /0 ) ; d.:v. i r.cn v Gr aerv i i .om en Umn, 213 F. Supp. 53 5 (S.D. Cal. .1 :' o j ) . 7/ In order to nanint 1,he Manter in mak.ing an evaluation of 1.he functional poaltion held by each CMI employee veCerenced in .i1.n .Iaterrogn t ony an. .: era , we a re providing under aeparate cover a copy ot' t.he CEI. co: pora t.e-erc.an13at i on chart which una furnished 1.0 t, h e Departc:ent of Juat. ice on April 22, 3975
~ ,
Hormn v Zn.l tz , 13 1 F.H.D. '. WU (M.D. Okla 1967), affirmed nub nom. Hatta v hr3n , . :r:nb , relatively junior officials di-rectly ir.volved in the trancact:fon were held to be members of the control group.
- 14. Perhapc even raore cicnificant, h e ,; e v e r , is the fact that the "contr31 Crc.ap" test has come under heavy crit-icism cince it was first announced.8/ It, therefore, came ac no real curprise .then the Seventh Circuit expressly re-jected the City of PPiladelnhia standard in Harner & Rc': Pub-lisherc. Inc. v Dech.", 423 F.2d 487 (1970), affirmed by an eaually divided Court, 400 U.S. 3118 (1971). By its ruling, the court there restcr2d the privilege to a non-control group corporate employee '.ho "makes the communication at the direc-tion of hia superiors i i d and uhere the subject matter upon ,
1 which the attorney's advice is sought ' - 5 is the performance l by the employee of the duties of hic employment" (423 F.2d at 491-492). Thic fer=ulation haa since been followed not only in the Seventh Cirauit (Roch ell Stanufacturinr Co. v Chicaro 1 l 1 Pneumai.tc Tool Co., 57 F.R.D. 111 (H.D. Ill. 1972), but also l y/s' .q. r. . .s. ,-.,..,3 s.
- i,. , r ., o .
. e. p. . , 3a r....
.. n..,<..,y. aar < v.g ,. A l. ". o r r' ">' - C" i. n. .'". w
. . . . ~ s 1%.
. 4- .. -t 1,,
3
.. , j ;j P . , 2 s. , . !.
w . . 7. ,] 3 l i)' (' .7 ,s
- q. i.
3
.su 4..s. i. tq p.
.g r., ; . ... .. . . , , f _
. . . . , , . " , m ; ' : . :s'. ' . a , 2 .'i i '. n ; L;
- u 01, t)c f C'ta:
. . .t" , n C. i 1
r(t a ..
, . , . . , p~m. . i . _c . _ 2 4._u_<_y . g ,
, - . , . .. . . _1w-, . .__ e.,p,
, .4 ,f.. 3 . .
.q . , . . ,;; _9 (; .s . . ) ., ,,e. .c,e, __ _ :__ c oi.. ,._,. .t:_g
.s o .r. i ,3. . . , .i .q ~. . c. ,3 y1 c .,,n.q
- r. .,. .. gs ,....
t' c r.' w . s ' e n I' / c. : ' " c c F a A t 'm e . . . o -.l i ' :t i. reivi:<- i n U. r '. = t m 1. - pyy. i.y. . : li h ".'u,J'-
' :J
- n.: ' a c " C c 1.~ n, '; ".la . Huu. I, . J . 203 (J4Y); a t.rc e , i'...'.c 'a <i' nie . .m and T!: COf norn':n Cottn:.. l ,
.' 8 A 1: .
L .e .M , _i i.:, ( _. % i ) ;' ii i.! i i n , Yh.: 2 : 1 o:..ia o l' i.'rt:-Tri n i lit a c o u t et o n A rt.o' - ..J 1,. o' n: M v-ilc , l. O n 0 N . 'i . St.a t,e Our A.. 'Oe U. 'v i c h .il t i: l l. !'t . , siU by m!'O C I MI:1 i. u ';) (19bb). J
-r .
within the Third Circuit where the " control group" test originated (Hasso y Retail Credit Co., 58 F.R.D. 425 (E.D. Pa. 1973)). See also Eutectic Corporation v Metco, Inc., 61 F.R.De 35, 40 (E.D.N.Y. 1973).
- 15. It is abundantly clear from a reading of the Harner & Row' decision, that the court's intent was to extend the corporate attorney-client privilege to confidential ecmmunications made to inside or outside counsel by employees acting -withir. the scope of their corporate responsibilities .2/
As subsequently explained in Rockwell Manufacturing Co., supra, under this standard, the privilege applies to all persons
" acting in their capacity as employees of the defendant and
[having] primary responsibility for dealing with [the subject matter of the communication]" (57 F.R.D. at 113).
- 16. The more relaxed standard enunciated in Harcer
& Row is in line with the statutory law of the State of Ohio, which has served as important guidance to CEI in the area of attorney-client. privilege. The Ohio Revised Code, Section 2317.021, which became effective on October 14, 1963, and thus has application to all of CEI's documents now under in camera scrutiny, defines the term " client" as follows:
* *
- As used in division A of section 2317.02 of the revised -
code, " Client" means a person, firm, partnership, corporation H/ #ce Note, " Attorney-Client Privilege For Corporate Clients:
- The-Control Group Tent," S4 Harv. L. Rev. 424, 433 n. 29 (1970).
l m
O or other association that directly or through any representative, con-sults an attorney for the purpose of retaining the attorney or securing local service or advice from him in his professional capacity or consults an attornov emnloyee for legal service or advice, and who communiccLes either directly or through an agent, employee or other representative, with such attorney; and includes an incompetent whoue guardian so consults the attorney in behalf of the incompetant. Where a corporation or association is a client having the privilege and it has been dissolved, the privilege shall extend to the board of directors, their successors or assigns, or to the trustees, their creces~ sors or assigns. This section shall be construed as in addition to, and not in limitation of, other la::s afford?.ng protection to ccm-munications under the attorney-client privilege. [ Emphasis added.] In commenting on this legislation, the Ohio State Bar Associ-ation Service Letter, Corporate Law Edition, made the fol-louing observation in June, 1964: The effect of this provision is to re-joct the City of Philadelchia limitations upon the privilege. If any corporate
. employee has communicated with the cor- .
poration's attorney with respect to a l matter within the attorney-client re- 1 lasionenip, and in pursuance thereof, that ec: uunication is protected by the privile.:e statute, regardless of the decisien-making status or importance in the corporate l' i in question.!_S./.orarchy of the employee I JO/ A copy of the Ohio State Bar Association Service Letter , . Corporate L:r.. Ed ition , in its. entirety, is attached hereto. l e l _..n. , - - - - - ~ ~ - - l
/
-ll i -
- 17. An application of the foregoing principles with respect to each document submitted to the Master by Duquesne and CEI under a claim of attorney-client privilege requires the continued exclusion of this material from pro-duction. As' reflected in the two companies' interrogatory answers, it cannot reasonably be maintained that there has been any waiver of the privileCe here as a result of broad distribution of the documents in question.
- 18. As stated in Rockwell 'lanufacturing Co. v Chicago Pneumatic Tool Co., supra, 57 F.R.D. at 113:
It is well settled that dissemina-tion of a communication between a corporation's lawyer and an employee of that corporation to those em-ployees directly concerned with such mattersdoesnotunpvetheattorney-client privilege.ll The internal distribution of the Duquesne and CEI documents has been minimal. It is a matter of record that the voluminous material with respect to which CEI seeks protection has at all time been carefully segregated and retained separately in the files of the Corporate Solicitor's office. The same procedure has been followed with respect to Duquesne's docu-11./ See also Svimb Steel & T'cIlne Corn. V Imoco-Gateway Ccrn., 62 [Tii . D . 494, 450 G; . D . 111. 1974). And ee Uni.Lnt & m:ca v Alum'nnt Co. offq.er'en, 103 F. Supp. 251, 253 (N.D.u.Y. 196c;, wherein .:.t in stated- "7 ' mow of no author-i.ty which would nold that the privilege is lont becau:50 one executive in a corporation diceleses to nnother such executive the factual information which he has given to counsel upon uhich'to base a legal opinion."
9 % ments now under scrutiny. There han been no indiscriminato mingling of this material "with the other routine documents of the corporation" in the manner condemned in United States v Kelsey-Hayes t'oel Co. , 15 F.R.D. 461, 465 (E.D. Mich. 1954). To the contrary, access to privileged communications has been ca.efully guarded, and, to the best knowledge of each of the companies, only those persons named in the interrogatory answers as having read or seen the documents, have been party to the discreet dissemination of this material. Even in such instances, the privileged communication was returned to the segregated files. 19 As for external distribution of any matter claimed as privileged because of the attorney-client relationship, such distribution has occurred only insofar as co-counsel to one of the CAPCO companies has received a copy of a privil ;ed communication, either in connection with the present antitrust litigation or with regard to the joint CAPCO prcject. In such circumstances, it is *tell recognized that the privilege is not lost. As pointed out in United States v Bigos, 459 F.2d 639, 643 (1st Cir. 1972), certiorari denied, 409 U.S. 889: While *re agree that the preserce of a thJ rd pa: v commonly destroys the privilege, iu does so only insofar as it is indicative of the intent of the parties that their communtca-tion net be confidential.
- 20. With specific reference to communications claimed
as privileged among and between the attorneys for each mem-ber of CAPCO, there is perhaps need for special comment. CAPCO was initiated in 1967 between CEI, Duquesne, Ohio Edison Company, Pennsylvania Power Company and The Toledo Edison Company. Purcuant to a number of contractual arrangements, the CAPCO members are coekinC to achieve more reliable electric cervice at a lcwer cost through the coordinated planninE, construction and operation of large, more efficient i l generating units and related transmission facilities. The ! various supply contracts and financial agreements ent,ered into in furtheiance of this effort necessarily obligate the lawyers j for each of the five CAPCO members to engage in extensive consultation as to exclusive CAPCO-related matters of a highly confidential nature '.:hich are being pursued by the companies on a common basis.
- 21. Such joint consultation of counsel on behalf of their respective clients is clearly entitled to the protec-tion of the attorney-client privilege.12/ Support for this conclusion is found in Schwarte v Broadcast Mucic, 16 F.R.D.
31 (S.D.H.Y. 1954), where it was determined that joint 7on-cultation with councel by members of an unincorporated asso-clation, regarding a natter being purcuad j ointly (in tnat case, a particuhtr lawsuic), would not jeopardice the privilege. l / Wir;nore eeni e*mlabes that communications between coveral per'.Gnc acting in concert ,tud their attorney can be privileged. 8 Wir/mee , Evidence. $2329(2). 0 =~ e e 'O
_ l
\
l I And a similar result has been reached where the confidential communications were exchanged among members of a trade asso-ciation. See United .Staton v American Radiator and Standnrd Sanitary Corn., 278 F. Supp. 608 (W.D. Pa. 1967); Phiindolphia llouning Authority v I.nerican Radiator and Standard Sanita n Corn., 294 F. Supp. 1148, 1150 (E.D. Pa. 1969) 13/ "'he j oint confidential consultation among CAPCO counsel is plainly en-titled to no less protection.14/ B. The Attornev's Work Product
- 22. CEI has also claimed protection from disclosure of a number of documents which are believed to te immune from diccovery as attorney's work product.15/ - In this connection, reference must be made to Rule 26(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which requires the discovering party to show "a substantial need" for material requested which was " pre-pared in anticipation of litiCation or for trial by or for another party or by or for that other party's representative (including his attorney * *
- or agent) 5 * * " before that ,
material need be produced. . lV Cf. In re Nrs.n :en Corn. , 37 F.R.D. 465 (il.D. Pa. 1965) t (privilene applicabic to group of baneruptcy trustecs for several c o rpora i' ion 8 ) . L'1/ This would include' notes or summaries of meetings claimed to be privileged, as well cs lauyers' draf_a either of internal confident'al comnunientionu or of materials intended overtually to be made public. See !!atto y Zauc, 418 F.2d 633, 638 (7th Cir. 1969); .Weri can 6t4 3 cn1 t:oro. v Moutronic, Tue., 56 F.R.D. 426 (D. Mass liri;:) . And .w e jjit t.i.n v liorna, aunva, 392 F.2d at 692. 1_'i,/ No such einin was made by Duqueane uith respect to the deeuntent.u it oubcd i1 ed for 113 enmera 1 cview.
-- - - = - - . , . , -
23 In what is generally regarded as the leading ccse on the nature of the " work product" privilece, Hickman v Taylor, 329 U.S. 495 (1949), the Supreme Court stated that the documents entitled to such protection must have been pre-pared "with an eye toward litication" (329 U.S. at 511). See also Vilastor-hent Then*.re Corn. v Brandt, 19 F.R.D. 522, 523 (S.D.N.Y. 1956); Conn:-cticut Mutual Life Ins. Co. v Shields, 16 F.R.D. 5, 7 (S.D.H.Y. 1954); Scourtes v Fred N. Albrecht Gryvery Co., 15 F.R.D. 55, 58 (M.D. Ohio 1993). The phrase has been construed by most.noted authorities to enco.:. pass those documents which "chn fairly be said to have been prepared or obtained because of the prospect of litigation." 8c Miller & Wr1Ght, Federal Practice and Procedura: Civil, $2024, at 198. While it seems clear under this formulation that the "[r] emote possibility'of litigation such as surrounds nearly every act of the office attorney" is insufficient basis for, invoking the privilege (Zenith Radio Corp. v Radio Corn. of America, 121 F. Supp. 792, 795 (D. Del. 1954)), an attorney's " work product" can Jnclude material generated prior to the cimo that suit is instituted" (Arney v Geo. A. Hormel & Co., 53 F.R.D. 179, 181 (D. Minn. 1971)).
- 24. There exists acmc difference of opinion at the present time as to wr.ccher popera prepared by an attorney in another case enn proper?,'; be wi.thheld frca production ac " work i
i I L
product." The earlier canec ceem to have reanived this icsue on the t;acic of whether the other litigation has been fully completed before the discovery request -- in which cace pro-duction of the material was ordered (cco !!anover Shoe, Inc. v United F. hoe Machiner.v Corn., 207 F. Supp. 407, 410 Gl.D.Pa. l'J62); Tobacco & Alliod Etoct:c. Inn. y Transamerica Co"n., 16 F.R.D. 5?l, 537 (D. Del. 1954)) -- and on uhether a close relationship can be shown to exict between the prior case and the one pending (Republic Genr Comonny v Borg-Warner Corpora-tion, 381 F.2d 551 (2d Cir. 1967)). 25 For present purposes, however, there is no need to linger over this issue. For, as CEI's interrogatory ancwers j demonstrate, all claims of "uork product" associated with liti-Gation other than the present proceeding concern active matters which are still pending, and concern dinputes between the City of Cleveland and CEI which bear directly or indirectly on the broad allegations of anticompetitivo conduct which the City has raised here. Thus, even under the older authorities, CEI's claim of a " work product" privilege as to documents prepared "with an eye touard" other litigation wou]d be entitled to recognition.
- 26. It is well to point out, however, that raore recent judAclal pronouncements regardlag the " work product" privilege have coemed willing to afford a greater protection to material 4
prepared in connc:ction with other litigation. In Dunlap y Mottlinne et Pactor V;rle de Chavntm, 487 F.2d 480 (4th Cir. 1973), for example, the court ruled that the underlying pol [cies of the H1cW G doctrino, when balanced with the privnte and public intor<>ct in preserving the integrity of the local profession, domand that an attorney be permitted to acaert a qualifiul privilege for " work product" materials prepared for prior liticat" which has been completed. In rejecting the older authorities to the contrary, the court stated that they were "inccmpatible with the essential basis of the Hickman decision" (487 F.2d at 484 n. 15). In a later case commenting; on the Dunlac decision, Commonuealth of Puerto Rico v SC Zoe Coloctroni, 61 F.R.D. 653 (D. 'uerto Rico 1974), a middle ground was stuck between the earlier decisions and the more expansive Dunlan ruling. Although the court there was satisfied that a cufficient chowing of nececcity had been made to require production of the questioned documentc, it described the scope of the " work product" privilece in terms of D N
- trial prepnention material, such as mental impecanlons, opinions, and the like, when prepared for a first, netten not yet completed, or which l'c"rc a subsh;dnial relatienchip
.3;h the present li tJ ; .ation , or in which the ..nme coun a l exict on either c id:. . [61 F.R.D. at 659; emphncia added.]
- 27. 'dhichever standard is applied in the present proceeding, it cer.ma clear that CEI's claim of protection for its attorney's " work product," as identified in the in-terrdgatory answers, is uell taken. Most of the material in question relatec directly to the present proceeding and was unquestionab]y prepared in anticipation thereof and in preparation therefor. And, as noted above, the remaining documents cornern other pending litigation either against the City of Cleveland directly or in which the City is a party.
- 28. Thus, the real question concerning this aspect of the Master's review function is whether the Department can make a satisfactory showing of a legitimate need for the ma-terial requested. In this regard, Rule 26(b)(3), Fed. R.
Civ. P., is very explicit with regard to the standard that must be met. It states that discovery into this area will be permitted:
* *
- only upon a showing that the party seeking discovery has sub-stantial need of the materials in the preparation of his case and that he is unable without undue hardship to obsain the substantial egalvalent of the materials by other moons.
- 29. In applying this standnrd to particular fact situations, the couros have made it c.loar that the " substantial need" criterion can nat be n,et if the discovering party can obtain the information it needa by tn!:ing the depositions of
.. \
1 l
- l 1
witnoccon. See Uni t-:d Stat.nn v Real En tn te Bon ed of Lietro-politan St. Lou!n, 59 F.R.D. 637, 640 (E.D. Mo. 1973); Arney v Pormel & Co., 53 F.R.D. 179, 181 (D. Minn. 1971). In ad-ditio'n, no "cubatant al need" will be recogniced if the dis-covering party want: the materiala merely to accure him that he has not overlooked cnything." See Ilickman v Taylor, suora, 329 U.S. at 513; Re- +lic Gear Ccanany v Borc-Warner Corocra , tion, 381 F.2d 551, 557-558 (2d Cir. 1967). And, it is equally well established with respect to the " undue hardship" showing that is required before production of " work product" documents will be ordered, that the cost or inconvenience of discovery is not sufficient grounds to juctify comprcmising of the privilege. See Arney v Geo A. Normel & Co., supra; Lester v Isbrandtcer Co., 10 F.R.D. 338, 340-341 (S.D. Tex. 1950); Berrer v Central Vermont Ry. 8 F.R.D. 419 (D. Liass . 1948).
- 30. Based en these uell settled principles, CEI sub-1 mits that its claimed attorney's " work product" is entitled l
i to full protection. The Department of Juctice has had extensive l I discovery of CEI's documents, and in that connection it ham already reviewed more than 56 file drauers. E Moreover, it hac noticed for depe: itions more than 20 witnesses employed by l CEI, while reservinz,the richt to add to thic lint in the future. And, in addition, it has the benefit of participating in the 1 16/ Anoiner .111 file drawers of CEl documenta -- with renpect to E751ch tJ.e Compn 4 has atweed to waive it.s claima of privilcre -- have recent.ly been u.nie available for inspection by the Department. O n.~ . w w
depocitionc of additional CEI employeen noticed by the other partica. In these circumstancec, no legitimate need can be demonstrated for requiring CEI to turn over to the Department tlic documcnts subject to a claim of privilege as attorney's
" work product'."
C 01:C L U S T.0 I For the forecoing reasons, the claim; of privilege asserted by Duquesne Light Ccmpt.ny and The Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company chould be sustained. Recpectfully submitted, SH A'd , PITTIIA:!, POTTS & TRC'lERIDGE By: ..k ...- ! ., \ \ % _ li _ t Wu. Bradrola nr/nolus t Gerald Charnoff Councol for Applicants Dated. April 25, 1975 O b 8 w _ __ 4
( N .. (. ... lj. . ,'t*',~
' , . . ,I '~
-{
, j .; r
.. .[/*
3 g 7.j j : ), j ,. : } 4, lj ,
..'9: ; : q
- ".**, ,' ( -) 'j
., 'P....})"J.i'.1,a%.' > '.. .i.; .
.c .
.1 ,' ,' :: 1,;
. ,.....a.. . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . < . . .. EDITO:'Mr_ ";' ' C07.r'. T"';
.s.
. , ,.~ , r. . .-
., fl '.^,'*) 1,]
] . '} /, *\ 't Chel-s A. ;.-.!-
f'(u
+.r M .s A'O F Q:. c.'\'~'."
ij; *l .i '9. i J l. M ,/ - Jul.ru F. .*?ew ,e 7
- i. .,;,.
.f* ,.: I C ,.e a.<.v.., M :.1 C, .. .
p :. ..
.c..~.-.. ,;b,:-- ,,
r:;p)v:' m
- ,, . . J u r. .,y L& N w n.a. .
./ .. , ; .
i.c.......,..>.. y :n > . - . y.,,...-.- Pre ned 19. A: C.n;maix ! w C:,,.-iw, ,' sib : H. Suly Jr., Chairmen, .
~
c :d n . C: ;::
.....-.,..........,..=....'x..::.t. C. ;.r. ei C - : :. , n . .. .. " ' .r::m, : : C:.:: ire en. . _ .
Vol. II No. 1 Junc,1004 d.. ,.o. .r L. . , . .m
. 3..A.r Cs,.
. .. .I.,r.
.. C O .,,. w ,.p.a -c. ,,o.
. . h..:Jr T.t ., o AiiO . . .
n.
. . n. 1.
.. - C Lu. . . . ,.1. ..
. i .., i - Il7L7 , -. . ..:, v.::, Ls' 6.,10 .
On July 13, 1003, Governor Ithodes signed into law Substituta Senate Lill No. 225, providing as folloers: SECTION 1. That section 2317.021 cf the l'evised Code be enacted
- to read as follow::
Sec. 2317. 031. As used in division (A) of section " 317.02 of the P.cviced Code: .
"Clier.t" means a perscn, firm, partnership, curporatien, or other association tR t, direct!y er threuc.h r.., re. ore::entelive., conaulta nn . .
attorney for the purpose of retaining tha at:Orney or necuring legal corvice or cdvice from him in his profencienal cap: city, or consults an atto:ney crcployce for leg..I service or advice, and who comraunicatcc, either directly or through an agent, empicyce, or oth:r reprecentative, with such attorce , :'nd includes an incon :.' ten: .vho:;c .aardian no concult . the attorney in b.: half of the incompetcat.
- Where a cor.ocration or associatien is a client hwin.e, the privile:re o and it has b::c:: dissolved, the privilm:c whr.Il extcad to :he lact board of directors, their succcssers or assQim, or to the tre.:teca, their successorn -
or acni;tns. , 1 i Thio "ection Shall be COM4truef' a N J ' ad.'ili0 n ! 3., and not in ' limitation of, cther Ia'.M "ordity 1"V. <uion W ceru .u"ication:. under , i tilu .'.ttorney-Clic3! p el?2..'{.J. l i Urior tO dt! . e:!Dett; cid ChidS staletOry 13% re. T W . tb ~1 U* *
,; Clica', pi'ivilege hod CO;u:1,t e ;.;
(...
- n .: n ? .:,' ' l a .5J C. - .) 8.d.-, *i. .
C: ' 1 r0 ." O ' 140 ii) I O U ; !! a". The f$110ciing perron : ' hall : * . .
.a c e: : ' .n recpects: (A) An attorney, conce. ain.: . con:r.:.inicatien s - ta n ! hi . client in that relali >n or hh. advice to hi . clic :t . . 1. . t.. at'o: '
. . . :nay te.-;tify by express conm.nt ot ;he el; nt . . . or if ' clic .: . . . be dcco:med, by the e xp ec.... c. n... nt o f d:.- . m is i: ni '? '" t he cwco'or or adniinb.trator of the e a:e of :;uch dece? t. cib 4 . .. " l i: 'b clvut . . . voluut trily te::li-fi ::, the titoi ney . . . tur:. le coa:"eI! <l a'e :t h . oa :he ,a in e subje c t . . . .
*D D ;,[ f[ $ _
i I g
~
a pro a '. :d 3 or in : . n. .m a w. wa . .n u . . ; n , - 133 Unio Ut. 141, S 11.1;. 31 @ % ( t M 3 c); _ . .. . fr >;a torced dL.':1.n.u re . .% n, ~e '. , .h. :.. .e.E. . '.7. m. .t.u. o., paro Lhon;J, 74 Oniv St.1, 71 . L F.li,('.Uu Q 1 - fr.,2bt w1s ca;.t on the vallritty of thin ar,numotten in the summer of 19G2 when Chief .,O Jod::.; . r., . t ! .n '-
- v. Au g r.i.r m_G. _r _. - . .
~'arr/.J.11 of t!. : ;iorth rn 1.'t!.tSct of Illinvi~. in .Ra_.d._i _i nt.1N.._rn_n e.n. . _Ir. ". . . .
s :t u teld ".u*., lih- the pririler.: ..;;ain ,t :. :1f-incri:ninMion, the atternay-ciwnt pr r.o!. :p: v,au p;.. ntur 2 7.nd tiserefore not : a!' h!c to corporations. Un reacor.ad, ificer:;, ia r.o hcidin,q, cmployces, that the rcepti .. atu! director... -
- on!& *intly cc :Id nct e:: int it, the ca.,e of a corporathn having e i; toc::ho'.hr;, and noted that th. ctochholders, clong with the state, have the right to exainino v. cj.o-rat : . ecords.
Ti- connternation vhich that dcchion cauncd among attorney 0 representing corpora'c.c&n'.s, who wua iltaraby seddenly tiwctened wi*n having thr.ir conCdential coanullations with th.:iv clie..tc - raat.t : nil bb to weary panrin~. liti:; .nt, war hardly aUeviated when, in _C..i.ty of Philt.de'n.h.h_. - . . We in+n m1 Imetria Corn. , a Judy I"irkpMrich coa ~. ded the abstr.ict pcopotuca nat ec .
@ .c u m i,,m w.tm.,- t . .arivii. 3 but limiw! its 0.W. ication to the case where t'n con'idar.ti .1 e mu.mic. 5 r. ion nou:N to 1.a prcP.:ct A hN 5.an inada to th attorney by a corporate employee if (en. oly i:) tha la.tcr in:
. . . in a position to control or even to taSc a cubst'in'i 1 part in a deci ion about r_ny action which tha corpora'.ica may tah: upon the advica of 'ho atternvy, or if he is an authorized member of a body or group which has that authority . . . . (210 F. Supp at G5)
These criteria pose sericus hazards to the sanctity of confidantial communications otherwi:a w v. . '. . the 1ea:imnte scope of the at.or ney-client relationship. Not only is counsel faced at the outt.2 thu m.nifast difficulty of d'.tcr:ainin; in cdvance which officern or empicyces constitute ths "ccr..c1 p,roup", but ha is alco severcly handicapped in dischtrpng his dutiac to his corporate cliant uh.ra information must he obtained from, or advico given to,1csser empicyces. In rceponse to the threat pocod by thoce dacisions, the Corporato Counsal, Corporation Lat. - and Andtruct Lt.w Commitius of the Ohio 2. tate Dar Ascociation a;. pointed cuLcommit;.acs io c:..at thet mir,ht b2 taken to precorve and define the privnege for corporation cligne , to3a'he- mm.rurt.
'Chio/ Whi'c u. tr Chio dc.ciniennllaw, as noted abcva, empicyment of the priviler by ccrner:t. n; had been accorded implicit recognition, there was alv,ays the posclaility of judicial reconsii.cr.io:r.
- 1. The privilu p ha iliievise been tppliad to conmumicatienc with00 corporate F. Supp.clients 357 (D.in-fJasc. ot' ar juri -1NJ - -
dicuens. See,e. ._, Ur.it3! Shica v. Ur.ited Sho: mchinary Co., Ste;< art Ecuimaent Co. v. GM:e,107 .'. 2d 537 (Saper. Ct. N. J.1954). The ,'.s commentator < a.a Annlied to Cr.rn e . m genraDy supy:rtac thm pac. tion. See Simon, TM Mternav-Ctbut Privilow L. nov. 305, 241 (1U61); Uniform Euks ei
,t_f ong G5 W h L. J. 053, 951 (1953); Note, 5G N. U.
IO.idance, Ruta 23 (3)(n)(1::F.'); IJodal C.de of 1;videnec, Rule 200 (a)(10 ;.2).
- 3. 207 F. Supp. 771, 200 F. Supp. 321 (N. D. Ill.190'J), revd. 320 F. 2d 311 (7th Cir.10C 2) cc et.
daiad 373 U. S. 923 (106.0, The de& ion Mtracted em:sidornLle co:mr. cat, both judicini, G . S ... t ' N : a '.:;, Mc. v. Scif t f. Co. . "tG F. Sur,'. 353, 'S (,13. D. N. Y. 19 8:1); .Co r_ri.a in v_. _ -- .. . W. ir Corn., :.i c. J . & ', . a 15, 5 21 (d. D. Cal . 10 TQ; i.h._r.. . e._d S t u_n - s v . J '_ . N. o_n .' M. e. .! _i_. ... ._ _ n. _ . .
. i.
- e. r W e Co . , i1,..
." i ' . 6 n , .) . 0 3, H 3 (D. h . J . l':E); A c Ic:tn C- c .:id C o . v . 1 .ren: M t '
. , .ditic c, Th.. C;.J.cn....to ... 6 Oh, 1.'t n. 1:'(D. D yl,100"), nad in the la .* rener e. - -
< ; r ..
CU ' l'ci. !! : a, !O If, Va. L. Rev. U::, :!70-27/ 0 06::); 7G Unrv. L. nev. 653 hun 3); G t ' ik . t un uw3); 111 L. l's.1.. Iter. C'i" (LOG 3). .'ee, also, L uihy, I.n tiver-Cl! mt } rb it . ., O 1F. St. B. J. (1963); 51211. D. J. 6Gd (.!DG3).
..d> ,.m.i. C
'.. '" O F. Su:9. J U:; (n. D. l'a.19G3), petition for iMudanuni nud prehildtiva d ntad .u.,.
er ' .I retric Co. v. 'tir'.p.' trick 312 F. 2d 70:! (3rd Cir.10G3) curt, dcaied J70 U.'5.13U 6
** 2 "
c.- < .. . _ _ _ _ ,
,
- in .L. : .. ..d. . C.'.:..l.".:.; .v. ..
. i t. < t.o.a._! )ich.i.na.n. A Co. , 211 F i; app. 0 % (O. II. J. 190 ?)o a civil n utitrut.t cv . ;,
7d..; a t: :.ppea red thA th stato .I adopted the liniform Cude of Ev.i * .nce (incorporatiop. colupru-b r*.dv< orovinion; rel.i.ng to th9 :'lturrv:y-client 1 rivilego), the coa flatly rejected a contention ba:.;e:. u;.oa Ma fi et Imen rs, : tuting (,L p 05):
. . . (T)h 1: .w Jerney I,cjiahture bau net at rect any doubt renpucting the perai .icm.e of tha etwro :y-client privile;;o, and Ita availability to a corporate li:f nant in thi:1 :.tS tc.
Ihwing the foregoing in view, tM cubcomini.ttees draf ted a hill hated upon the attorney-clier.: privi10:;e pr ovisions contain2d la tN Uniforza Ccde of Evidence. The bill wac comprehenLiia in forn , and 2.pWlad out, ia det 'il (:) defin: tion; of " client", "communicatio ts", end " attorney" for purpo;au ' ci th'. privi!c:0, (o) a <c:re:ral ruh u:buding the privilegc to communicat uns undo in puessanc; c; f,atternay-client privileg :, (c) excei,tions to the rule, and (d) provitions relative to waiver of the
..p rivili . . 4 Whi% the abcontmitteca hept their respective parent committees informed as to thir pr? ;r r, tha shor:..ra of time renaining b ;lora adjournment of tha Gan:ral Ancembly procluded try att :ra .. '.u obtain ei: nr Coramitaa or Asscchtica approval of the bill. Senator Jonea, who had earl ~s en.o. re: ./
intarut in t.n: purpo:ss of the bill, in.rc-luced '.hc combined Lube mmitteca) draft into the Sanay vhere (as h a ite 13i11225) it "ta r.pproved by the Judiciary Committee and then by the Senate, ay a vote of *:5-0. When the hill was called for hearing in the !!ouse Judiciary Committco, however, objections were c:: pre;csad by some committua members who Icit tha.t they had not baan affo"ded ndaquata t.ir : to consider all nc,0ccta of the bill. 7t was sugjenSd that, instead of attempting !a codify :' . on:.r. Ohio la.*, of attorney-client privile;c in an omnibus bill, the draf t be limited to the inam: diab pruc-lems posed by the Ibdi'.nt Barners and City of Philadelphia dacisions. To accompli ,h thia, a sch-sti:u:e bill wta preparcd inccrporating tha caba.;nnce of the " client" definition section of the ori;rin:1 bill, vtth amendments, cnd in that frem the bill was pasred by the Genert.1 Assembly c:t Juna 37, 100, and signed into Inw by the Gov 2rnor on July 15, 1963. Arcivr.is of Sec. 2317.021, R.C.
- 1. For .our. doses of divisica (A) of Sec. 2017.02i R.C. , which prohibits an attorny frora tar-ti'yi .g vnh re spect to a communientica from a client or his advic to the client without t':c chan9; const nt or wr.!ver, the word "cliert" 10 dcfin0d to include "a parson, firn., partnership, corperntba, or c:har r.csoci' tion." This eliminct;s the poscibility of a n uHant Barnern denial of thu privilap t:.
~ - -- - ~ ~ ~ - " ~ - - ~ " - - - - ~ ~ - ~ - - -- ..
.. cery,ratiens in Chio.
- 4. 1.ade F. n.C.I'. 4Mn), the federal courts are required to admit all evidance "which is ai!;ri cci f u nd:. tm :trt tc ci ta: United Statec, or undar the rules of cv: :ence hereNfore applicd ia th . rop c.' .n. Urn.nd C;a es on tha I.earhg of nuits in equicy, or unde; th : rules of evidence ..ppUed in the ecuc. . ef , .:nacal juri. .'ictica ei the * : ate in which the United States court -h. held. Ia an; ca e, J srtute or r: ' e widch favors the ree:wiun cf th: evidence gorcen:4 . . ." Where the - . a n e:;-
el ".,10:.. ( c a: e . tam
- e, the t ric wa. h 4d ic be oM trwine in the diversity juri:< diction ca; i of e: . . . .r . .
,3..
...ete, i .c. .e.q jp. . u.i u3. s.c ,. n . I ,J s. ..J , a t p . 7 . . ,..c
" A , i t.f
- tute, if there is one, r.hauld cont rol, though :t i:2 more re .t rictivu !! .o fcna cat.
pret a'; .: , 'et if !ivre 3:. no Lie te ..u nte and the 'N1 in denbn :1 a; to !!:s p u ta uh. ::ituntmn, tr.t - s- Ub u .tl federal precedenin may be follo.ced, n Cyclopedia of l'cder 'l Procedurc (:;rd Ed.)
&. . .':.. O', p. ~ 4; 5 Lere ts Fede. al t'ractieu ("mi Ed. ) :k:c. C. 07, p.11 r!. "
I i PB5M
t* q:.la r. pu a v q; t a.:ep! aix o,[ Ag p.iuqant uri.;p. w ,.; \- L pacig pitu tmi,; pi'.t tv O li! pun A Cao. o
;;.:noX y :j.ip -pa.x,.I cqc.r r 1.'"q I t*p v ^0.ttii I ydacor
. p 'a r n.ta n g \t n::u cipit y p.:D H M n illf/A N;Io Wl Tu MCI A r, ant.ups jy ,. syon *a c ':Pui;) ,oun.;t 3 Irp.'nt a unty p;c;pp;T.ta w qcy
.j p < s p a opy n 3,u ca j[ unutairtp-ca '.in~= u;. A ut.or t.oaucpy g n uturap:yo-c;) 'up von; y t:0punD FJC13GLi1 NOD U.MV C211iPU70DO OS 'IYUiO1TCS EI:170 SH5'? MEN co*+tevec n o;as;3J G.'.p?
.qo a;on; Jo; ptmoaB Uut;uny tantiucppo u: L::!ppoad S1 6tu7c cau try; 'c;ueno 01raedaco J!ey;
;o c.- m 'lctr/tue "t:p;utu Xaned-rou tap. W;nneuco u; '11.t3 are; rup.t::3 ata jo Iocenco c v0 Er.anaa n; .:u; os' p;notp at 'SJorun.'s S;J Aq popuo;u} TUTut*,tu nty Oy) y;pt i un .;GuutW Cy; et O!.2000 luaGpO; p" on:c y;oq Xq ponddu si cinrets oy;;I raut m cy; yo ;anny ctp rdettaod t; ;ulod ;cui ep:1 enconb u; coht d =7 oy; ;c Xyoan
-a p! n;;andaco ctp u3 cout:acdtui ao enir;s Zu!nsu-uo!sioop cy; ;o uso! par.o.t 'c;n t;c Mjo: ppd azi .
' p ;o: cad y ucip olunutwoo icy; 'Jooactp ;,ouuncand vi put 'd;qsum::In.2 ;uryp i;u.:c;;; cyi tig;t/A
. s;r;u.: n o; ;oeduo.1 tpp. Xcu.to::u c, :opuaod.rco cy; tap. po;ro;umunoo suq ouloidtuo e;uaod.:oo Zur
;t c 2:ni.si.td otn undn cuentntutt up,np:ptnyc1 jo ano r.y; inofoa c; dI to7 poari uty; ;o goe;;o oy,(,
- e. . ;u et;; y; . oino;unt utoo ot ;ueno ny; Sq porpoy;nu aAiregnoscadca ao 'co loi duac ';u dir Au u l'1
- 0. :.uutivinc ;ua!Io fouannt uu In ccanoo oy; u3 'Xonao;;n ota o; cpttu suopro;untutuco sossudwo ,va cHu; ppd ot;i jo nono.noad egg auolo n antiu og 41 snopqo s; o;!unSuni cy; Jo osuos eqi 'n.uc;Is n '
Jo w,7 nut;ep oy; unda venu; pun n s, p .m.atpi ci sp;; alpf,i aan.:.ucso.2doa acylo ao 'ec;m.dwo
';uew un tpluo.:y; ao '4;;oca7p aoyno fouaone sy; q:ps po;notuntuu;oo cacy ;cntu ;uono ay1 -
d ua eq Astu .sr.uacun cyJ, g losunoo ocuot! ' a 3 ';uotp otn ;o coloi u:o po;utelop sq X tu (di ycucpupa pntooload cy; qcp.qu:no og Iqwa puq pur.ca :1 acuta o; i pog;nn tutp ror on u; n 'uo;nppe uI po;ce;o.M .- : ippt/A uiting sucinoiunu2= .o
'uwar cy; vou;Jup puu dryunoptica ;t:ono-Xnnaont ny; Jo Zoutt.n " .I cy; scaursu n;y1 'tioi:dso nucisccjoad c;y u; wp] tuoJJ ooppU .!c oC.p.!as it'Uol 3 {ano 3 .to / aJoiiU O'4 D:init;oa Jo ECodard p, ac; '01.;;u;uescade.t Xuu niincaqi .to Anou.fip 'i:9:.:o;r: un ponnsuco .,Aug icau: ;ueno ry1 ;;
<.',"* ~-.*=
/.
* .-% c~.,,*.4,.
CHIO STATC C AR AUSOCI ATION -, _ ,, s
', ? .
' O ' N ' ' -
. . .;
- k. ?:, ., -() OM., Eeg I Cuter (,,,,,,.:,....'s:: -- -l i
..,._..:,.=
., w.<v.we.v..n u. me,.,. 6, 4
- . c o L u a o u > s. o H e o .
t
-? : -.. c:- *:.;.'.:;1_ N l; I .t f .1,
. s t-o._.... ....>s.
. . . .e r 2.
Ccle:ch ::, Oh;o . Or ! O O dln.i. -
;, : ,, i ' . . . /
L. . . , . . i ..r Cl valand 1.5, O h i o
'v
.E
UI;ITED STATES OF AIERICA I!UCLl'J.d Ith.CUf,ATORY COMMISSIO!! Ik f' ore t! f. tom. i c Sn t e t / and M consinf t Board In the iiatter of
)
)
T!iE 70f,EDO EDIEC!i C,: Pl UY and )
'I . . .. u . e r . - ' * . .-) me .r r -....t.,- I w* ' U . u . .*n <2> 1-.u
'.t )
(Davis-Eccce Iuclear Power Station. ) Docket Hon. 50-346A Unit 1) ) 50-440A
) 50-441A THE CLE'IELC:D SLECT.~IC ILLUMII:ATI:iG )
CO:. IPA:!?, ET AL. , ) (Perry Nuclear Power Plant, ) Units 1 and 2) ) CERTIFICATE OF SER7 ICE I I hereby certify that copies of the foregoing
" Applicants' Brief To The Special Master In Support Of Their Claims Of Privilege As To Certain Documents Requested For Production" uere served upon those persons listed on the attached Service List by U. S. mail, postage prepaid, on this 25th dt-/ of April, 1975 SH A'd , PITTMAN, PCTTS & TROFIBRIDGE c- >
f By: bA IN . 0 .'k. k h:a . 1;raurore A:;nolds NY3k-' Counsel for Applicants Dated: April 25, 1975 ame . en e === . *wenee we== . - en
s,5!J'iMD STATE.'; OF AMEi:TCA UUC1.Uhn lu;GUI.1 .Ton 7 Cott:n:;.'310M Df_e .o_re t-he A' -o.- a.-
- - . l c . a ef t y a nd T_d e n n .J nr<r Dn:n'd -
In the Matter of )
)
T!!E TOLEDO CO.?.*d'i&' and ) r EDI.".',A - u. r, ll t .>. .... .u.,,...:) ... . , y . . . m. . ~,.
) .
.- L .,. .e.,L.u.u ,..,. .. .,
I L L ,s...,. L,v,.. :,2. 3, . . <
)
. ) .
(Davin-Henne l'uclear Pc, nr ,) Doc]:ch Hoc. 50-3116A Station, Unit 1) ) 5 0 lil: 0 A
) 5.0 liif lli
,2,h, s. .,. t., 7 .. .. 73. . . .,. . . 3
.. 3-. ,. , ., m . y 7,, .
)
I.)s.r.,i s."umw'; .1L.o r C,~.,~...."."1, 1.;1 /,,or .)
) -
(Perry Huc] car Pc::Or PlanB, ) Units 1 and 2) '-
) .
_Sl.RV.TCE LIST . Douglan V. Ricler., Ecq. Mr. Chase R. Stephens Chairman, Atonic Safety and Doc!:cting & Scrcice Sectier Licensing BOC?O U.S. I:aclear Het;ulatory C c:.c . ic ai-Foley, Lardner, Holl2bauch 1717 H Street, N . 'c! . and Jacoba 1.!ac hing t on , D . C. 20006 Schan:in Building 015 Connecticut ;wenuc,11.U. Benj cuin H. Vocler, Esq. Washingt:cn, D. C. 20006
- Office of General Counscl John !!. Erebbia. Ecq.
NOGulation U.S. Muclear Re.c.ulatory C en mi n c. ie Atomic Safety and Licens1n$ Bou,rd Washington, D. ~C. 205U5 Alubon, Mt.11cr & Galnes 1776 1: Strect, 11. ' . . Robert J. Verdisco, Ena. U1ahinc. con, D. C. 2000u., Offlen of General Coun[ :E sT o3.I n a . v. l; ,. , , ,, ., ,1. .a ,
. . ~
N NC{#.U3at.ICn atemc.e . ,..,ie..,, ' . . . ,.y o.,.,.,'--i...',,,,,...,
' ; " c.
o U . .e2 . Nuclear ,ier.nlatory j C o.: c. we, J oJ .,a,, s..t 1, s, ,. ., l ,. ., .,. 11.c 1o.. h .mj. 'a i t o '. ,
. .n . C.
0 W-
- g. .e,7 . u(.'ie'' ii T 100r.v C e'3NI " U1 0 "
30y 1,, neggy, gy,, gq, ha.;h>n :.on, . . 0, . -a 2 ." O L.I. . ce 01, ts.e n e.c al t.otu:
' He r.ul l'.t l on Atemi e f'a t'ety and Licenuin$ U.S. ?:':elear H. J.u3 a t.oP J ('
lhiai J l'.niel Wanhine, ton, D. C. 20.;G U.S. t:aclear R'c.ula t c'.c Commlunion , Wanhin; ten, D. C. . @ '.i 9 9
'0l0'u O TO
.i r uo Yk g", \,1 um
.e
- _ . og
0 6
~
Joneph J. Saunder:, Esq. Len21e Henry, Eng. Stev<n 11. Chnrno, E.:q. Fuller, !!enry, Hodce Tc Snyder Antit.rua t, Divl .it.n 300 Madinon Avenue - Departw;nt of .in::tjce 'foled o , Ohio 1360! 1 ! Unch.ingt.on, D. C. 20S30 Thornan A . l'ayuha , Eng. Melvin G. Porter, Enj. Ohio Edjnan Cornpony Antitrunt Divin:i nn 1 '/ Horth Main St'/cet 1 Depart, ..ent of J uu tico Ahron, Ohio lll300 i
.Eachinct.cn, D. C. 20530 '
Thomac J. Munuch, Eng. licuben G o3 d h'.rg, ".nt, . General Attorney David C. Hj a:nt.fc.! ' , Eng. Duquenne Ljght Comp:tny 1*/00 Penn:.ylvcn.n Ave., ?! . U . 135 1 Si>:th Avenue Unchinnt.6, D. C. 20006 Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 1.W:D Frank R. C1chey, Esq. David Olds, Esq. Specia3 Acciatant Heed , S! nit.h , Shaw t. McClay Attorney Cencral Union Trunt Building Hoom 219 Dox 2009 Towne Douac Apartrents Pit,t o b u rgh , Pennsylvania 15730 Harrinberg, Pennsylvt.nia 1710b John Lanadale, Eng. Mr. Rayno.>d Euduhir. Cox, Langford a Brown , Director of Utilitien 21 Dupont Circle, N.W. City of Cleveland WaaPi.ngton, D. C. 20036 1201 Lahualdo Avenva , Cleveland, Ohio l i 4114 .Wallace L. Duncan, Eaq. Jon '" " 'w .1, Eno. Herbert H. h'hitin:;3 Director Duna crown a Pal:..or Robert D. Hart, E.:q. ' l'/00 1 c: r'glvania /,ve . , H.U. Dapartment of Law Wauhingt'c., D. C. 20006 1201 Lahaa:. de Avenue Clevelan;i, Ohio I!;111: ! Edward A. Mdtto, Enc. Ansjstant A1,torney Gencral John C. Engle, Prcuident Chief, Antit'cust Section AMP-0, Inc'. 30 East Broad street, 15th Floor Mu'11cinal .'uildin0 Columbuc, Ohio 43215 r 0 hs .i r,h g. sa re e t, Hiu.:ilt on , Ohio 119.01:.' Richard M. Fire" tone, Esq. Annistant At torney General Dana:td 11. ti nu w r , 1', q . Ant;it, Pun t, Sec t : en Corperct; M iciter : 30 E. Broad Simcot, 15th Flt '"
'The Clevej: .a: Elect te Columbuc, Ohio 43215 13 3 r. t r . : c-, cc- ...:e SS Pub 3ie Syr.:ve -
Debor.th P. !!ighm:li t.h , Ebq . Clevelan!, C h.:. 0 4!D 01 A:, :in t a n t. Al.terney General Ant i 1.run t. ""e t. i en 30 East. Bro.id Street, 15th F: e C oltuab u n , t' h .i o 4 .i .1 5 g Cht i nt.o;>her R. Scheaff, E 't . D 2 A; .i i r. l.an t. A1.1.o r ney Gene ra l 1 0}} Environr. nta1 1 n: S etlon 3(i) Ma n t. l a v : u l .;t. r e e l , 81. h l' i ' " ' ' ( h l l llla!1ll .; , l !i ! l. s 1 d. .e.
. . . , l i .I 1}}