ML19319C586
| ML19319C586 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Davis Besse, Perry  |
| Issue date: | 09/12/1975 |
| From: | Lessy R, Vogler B NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8002191023 | |
| Download: ML19319C586 (22) | |
Text
..
n
~,
. (,,/ -
m UNITED STATES OF N! ERICA ~
NUCLEAR REGullsTORY C0:414ISSI0ft BEFORE THE ATO:1IC SAFETY Ai!D LICEi!S!!!G APPEAL BOARD In the 1atter of
)
')
THE T0LEGO EDISO:!.CC'1PA!!Y and
)
fRC Docket l!os. 50-3a5A -
Tile CLEVEl.A:iD ELECTRIC ILLUtil!ATII;G )
50-T200A COMP A :"
~)
50-501 A (Davis-Besse fluclear. Poc er Station, )
4 Units 1, 2 & 3)
)
)
. Ti!E CLEVELNID ELECTRIC ILLL':41::AT!!;C )
lRC Dacket ?;ct,. 50-440f C0"PA!;Y, ET AL.
)
53-441A (Perry !!aclear Pc<:er Plant,
)
Units 1 & 2)
)
N STAFJ'S ORIEf 1:! PSSPO::SE TO T:lE OP.LE;!
i 0F THE ATC '.lC SAFETi A"D LIC'.::"I:.0 1
APPE Al. E0ic.'.) CT /MUST 14, 1975 4
D O%
i o o l'
D '9~}
~'
b Benjamin H. Vogler.
Roy P. Lessy, Jr.
. Assistant Chief Antitrust Counsel for t'RC Staff 1
- Counsel for NRC Staff 4
i
,.;. s. - -, AMy ~,.,,
September 12,.1975
/ :/
v 'C'i
" G,
/,. /
C ll j
.. - g, 675 * 'Q
^
' 'l -
d i
':.'G
\\/
- r..
'.,c;\\ )
- N??~
Q),_ { 1
~
800219102 3 fy i
J Auffl0RITIES CITED Cases:
Duke Power Co.
Docket lios. 50-269A, 50-270A, 50-287A, 50-369A, 50-370A.
7 First Iowa Hydro Electric Coco. v. Ioua-Illinci Gus and Electric Co.
1245 F. 2d 613 (uth 'Cir.195/).
7,8 International Peer Co. v. Firobcard Corp.
63 F.R.D. 60 (D. 1221. 1974) 11,12 liaqide v. Cor. tin :ntal Can Co.
12 F.R.D. 74 (S.u. it.Y. Ini).
Il f!ci:cice v. Oil Cerriers Joint Vrnture 22 F.R.D. 14 (t.0.
Pa. 19 %)
ll l7 i-ifatta v. N'acan 392 F. 2d bb6 13
-Puplic Service Co. of ilew il msnire filicT ia/o,Td o
ilRC Rules of Practice:
10 CFR 1 2.718 6
5 2.718 (c) 6,10 5 2.718 (i)
.'6 S 2.718 (1)
.I.
10 11 5 2.740 (b) (1),.
1 2.740 (b) (2).
11,13 5 2.753 6
l 5 2.785 (b) 6 D
dC[
I ii
@D R @ l Qi
. q di j
l ih UUL A
1.6
Treatises :
Wigmore, Evidence 52321.
11 s2292.
13 Other Authorities:
1 42'U.S*.C. 52133 (c)
AEC Mar.ual Ch. 0100, 5034 6
a 4
1 D*O D
oo O I'g
", Q
- }
~
.s Lib
. S _1_ "; _a 4
UillTED STATES OF A!' ERICA iluCLEAR REGULATORY C0:4MISS10ft BEFORE THE ATO:11C SAFETY A';D LICEf!SI;;G APPEAL BOARD In the liatter of
)
}
THE TOLEDO EDIS0:! CO:1PA:!Y and
)
t!RC Docket ;;cs. 50-340A THE CLEVELAfl0 ELECTRIC ILLU:11HATIllG )
50-500A C0F2A:!Y
)
50-501A (Davis-Basse l:uclear Pouer Station, )
Units 1, 2 T 3)
)
)
TEE CLEVEL//:D E.LECTRIC ILLb:il:lAlli:'i )
i:RG D cket ';os. 50-440A C0FPM;Y, ET AL.
)
50-441A (Pcrry !:uclear Power Plant,
)
Units 1 1 2)
)
STAFF'S BRIE: In FESN:.3E TO T:6 LRi.IR 0F TIlE /1041C SAi-iTV #:D LICE::SI::'
4 i
liFPEl,L C0.'..:D CF AUU1 1 a, 19 75 I;ilP,0D' JCT 10:!
This brief is filed by tu ::RC :
f f i'r. rc. spor.-
to the On.' r af
]
the Atcuic'Safdty and Licensing Appnl Board, dateo August 14, 1975, i
concerning the brief filed by the City of Cicvcited in support of its "i!ctice of Appeal.and Exceptions" of July 28,- 19h.
The er. peal concerns the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board's appointmant of a Special t' aster, the-role played by the Special ll aster, and the report of the Spacial Master concerning claims of privilege asserted by ona applicant in tais proceeding,. the Cleveland Electric Illurginating Cc. (CEI).
The Staff's brief will:cddress itself to those issues oil which the Appeal Deard requested views in its Order of August 14', 1975.
STATEI4Ei!T OF THE CASE
?
This proceeding inv31ves a prelicensing antitrust review, pursuant to Section 105c of the Atcmic Energy Act of 1954, as amended,1/concerning m
m)
D<
D 1/ 42 U.S.C. :s2135(c).
l!
~
o n
D v
t
_a
.o the Davis-Besse fluclear Power Station and the Perry lluclear Power 1
Plant,' Units 1 & 2.
I
'On September 16, 1974 a hearing was' held ct which the Licensing-
~
Board heard argutents uith respect -to numerous objections that had been raised concerning documentary discovery. 'On October 11,197a, the Scard is3ued its Order on' Objdctions to Interrognemes cnd Document P.cquests in which the Cor.rd direrted 2cc;1 party.fic t.:sar'.2d a privilege as a ground for withhciding tay t'acsant frw discovery to identify eacn such docu.nnt as folic..s:
The docunant shall ' c identi fied by date, perten(.)
c precaring the dsce mat, recipient (3), st.aject t.tter of the docvant,... uoj brief stG2. ent af t.e-casis for asseri.ing privilega, y 3
During th[ course of discovery a dispute arose as 'to certain documents whicn CEI cir. ired were priviler;cd cad accordir:ly vi thheld.
3 In order to resolve the dispute the Licensing Coard with the agrew wt of all the parties on Dacsber 10, 1974, ap;>cinted a Special :las ter i
j To. examine, in crera, all documents clair.:cd to be within the atUracy-ciicnt or atterr.ey-wor:: prcduct 7
privilege, and to determine unether or not such claim
' of privilege is s,ustained... The abave is accanplished with the express agreer. ant of the parties to be bcund
^
by determinatiois of the Mas ter.
This was discussed and agreed upon during -a telephone conference call-en December 6,1974 uith the Chairman of this Board. y i
y Order on Uajections to Interrogatories and Document. Requests, October 11, 1974, p. 47.
3/ Order appointing Marsliall E. Miller, Master, December 10, 1974.
din D) uI i
A tJu
_ JD
_ 7 nqg-1 t
_a gm y4y r-i y
y--w-
---,m
-p
-.m
-yr-y.
1 On~ June 19,.1975, the-Special Master issued his Report containing his rulings on CEI's claims of privilege.
Claiming, inter alia, that the Master had granted privilege to documents with respect to which CEI had waived their clairns of privi-
~
. loge and had h51d other docuants privileged on grounds other'than those expressly asserted by CEI fqr those docurt.nts, the City and tne Department of Justice r: quested Licensing Board revicu of the Sp'. cit.1 Master's rulings.4/ The City also asserted that the agrec:.3nt eueng the parties to be cuund by the Special Master's determinci.icas 5/ u.4 intended to preclude revi:u only by the Licensieg Coard and. cs nevcr intended to constitute a waivar of revie.i by the Appui l'.oard. kl The Licensing Coard dacidid that the parties were bou:.d'hy x agt c'. em but indicated that the Spacial Master.uculd reccnsidar his rulicry cia oral arguments by the interested parties. 7/- After oral orgument en June 30, 1975, the Specici Master,also on June 30, 1975, sus tair.nd the bulk of his prior findings. 8/
4/ Hinutes of Conference Call with Board Chairman on June 24, 1975, p. 2.
5/ See Note 3, supra.
6/ See Note 4, supra.
7] Conference Call.of June 25, 1975.
8]' Transcript of Hearing on June 30,1975, pp. 81-86.
See Report of Special Master of July 29, 1975.
1 e%
O D
n y
y D)
V d m [m y
0 1
A JL]
e
. ]L
.o
_a k
y
~
TABLE OF C0:lTEllTS 1
TABLE OF CONTEriTS,.
AUTHORITIES CITED.
. ii
'IllTRODUCTIO:
1 j
STATEMEltT OF THE CASE 1
STATEMEflT OF THE ISSUES AS SET FORTil BY THE APPEAL P.07.RD.
5 ARGU::ElT.
5 4
j I.
Tile-ROLE OF TliE SPECIAL i ASTER 11: THIS PROCEEDI? 3 WAS VALID ATID THE ATOMIC SAFETY AlD LICE::SI!:G APPEAL C0ARD SHOULD ' 0T DIRECT THE ATOMIC SAFETY /J:D LICE!!!!'!C.301.P.D TO (ERTIFY TO 1
THE APPEAL BOARD THE QUESTIO:t OF THE Vf.LlDITY OF THE ROLE PLAYED BY THE SPECIf.L MASTER 5
II. THE LICE!!SI::G DOARD SHOULD TiGAT THE SPECI AL l'ASl!.1:'S TEPOP.T AS A RECO:O'.EMDATIU:: C::1.Y.
9 III. TliE APPEAL BOARD SHOULD !!GT DIRECT CERTIFICl. TIC:: OF THE MERITS OF THE SPECIAL PASTER'S RULii:GS.
. 10 f
IV. THE SPECIAL MASTER ERRED AS A MATTER OF LAW
. 10 A.
TliE SPECIAL fMSTER ERRED lii FItiDI;!G COCL'MEi TS PRIVILEGED
, AfiD fl0T SUBJECT TO DISCOVERY 0:1 GROU::DS OTHER Ti(A': Til0SE ASSERTED BY THE PARTY CLAIMI':G THE PRIVILEGE.
. 10 I
B.
THE SPECIAL fMSTER ERRED IN SUSTAlill:G CLAIMS OF PRIVILEGE FOR 00CUMErlTS FOR WillCll CEI WAS UilADLE TO PROVE THE AUTHORS, THE RECIPIEliTS, THE DISTRIBUTEES OR THE ADDRESSEES.
. 12
.CONCLUSIO:1
. 14 b
4 O uv w
[
I_
ggnQnT d]u Ju 6
n.
4 t
On July'8,1975, the City and the Department of Justice filed 7
motions reques.ing the Licensing Goard to certify to the Appeal Coard 4
the issues raised by the Special Master's findings of privile;;e. El The City's liotion was denied by the-Coard en July 21, 1975. U/ On July 28,1975, the City filed a fio'tice of App;al end Exctptions to the Appeal Scard, After receiving the City's brief in support of its flotice of Appeal and Exceptions, 'the Appeal Doard, by Order of A : gust 14,1975, requested, inter.7119, the pactics to include in their ansucring 'oriefs a discussica of the quettien of -:hether the Appeal Board should direct certification of the question of the validity of the role p1 eyed by the Special ibster.
On Au;!'it 27, 1975, the Liccasing Coard denied the Decertoni. of Justicu's re :utIt
.for certi fi cation.
i i
I i
i 9] City of Cleval:nd's !:otion for Certificatica of Special itaster's Decision, As Supoleccated, on Claims of Privilege to the Atomic i
Safety and Lic:nsiag Appeal Board; ::ation*-for Cartification to the Attaiic Safety and' Licensing Apcaal Board of, an Appeal of the y
Special Mastcr's Findings of Privi,lage.
,10/ Ruling of the Board with Respect to City of Cleveland's Motica For Certification of Special Master's Dacision on Clain of Privi-lege, July 21, 1975.
j l
j L
1 ]Egq 1
c
,y
-,,,,--n,--
,en,-v,.--_,
-e-
1
.g..
STATEMEllT OF Tile ISSUES AS SET FORTH BY Ti!E APPEAL B0f.RD 4
-(l) Whether the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board should direct-the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board to certify to the f.ppeal Board the question of the validity of the role played by the Special Master.
(2) Whethr.r the role of the Special Master uns valid.
(3) !!hether the Licensird Cocrd should treat U.; Sincial : :stcr's Report as a reco':n-endation caly and entertain cbjectir.ns th ;reto.
(4) Uhether the Apperl F. card should direct c:.rtific: tion of the 4
1 merits of the Special Master's ruling;..
(5) Brethar tha' Spat ici ;hster's relie;s were corret.t concernin<!:
(a).Une.ther the Special :'.aste.r erred it: finding docc:. ants privileged and not subject to disecvery en grounds other than those asserted by the party clair:ing th5 -privileg?.
i' (b) 'Whether the Special i4 ster erred in sustaining cloits of privileg2 for docueients for which CEI was uncble to prove the authors, the recipients, the distributnes, or the addr20sec3.
]
ARGUMEllT I
- 1.
,TiiE ROLE OF THE SPECIAL MASTER I!! TiilS PROCEEDI!!G MAS VALID AND THE ATOMIC SAFETY A:1D LICEriSII'G APPEAL C0ARD SHOUI.D i;0T i
-DIRECT THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICE;1 SING BOARD TO' CERTIFY TO Tile APPEAL BOARD THE QUESTIUM 0F THE VALIDITY OF " \\\\
3 D
~ PLAYED BY TliE SPECIAL MASTER.
U
<f -
s yc%.
e em' e-or
-~,,~+e
--4 g
-=s
-M-m1g--
J
.It.is clear,that the Appeal Board has the authority under 10 CFR Sections'2.718(i) and 2.705(b) of the Rules of Practice, to direct the Licensing Board to certify issucs to the Appeal Board e
for its determination.
In the Matter of public Servig Co. of i!w Hamo-
-f
. shire (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2) (hereinafter Saabrool:). W However, it is the Staff's position thrt the appointrent of the Sp2cial t
Master to review the documents claimed to be privileged by CEI.tas con-sistent' uith the dalegation of authority to the Lie : sing Coard e.> set forth in the AEC Manual and the Cc.:missien's P.ules.
]
The AEC Minu.;l provides that "...the delepted authority of / a.
Safety and LicensinJ Coards my not be further red:-Iceded." l? The I
authority delecat*.td ti the Liceasing teard is r.r t fert!. in the Co.ch on':>
Rules of Practice at 10 CFR !2.713.
Un er tiiis S ctica the Licen:ing Board is respo[1sible for the conduct of this nearing, including, ir.cer ali'a, the authori:.y to regulate the course of the hecricg and the coaduct j.
of the particip;nt:;.
To thir cnd the Co=:ission's Rutas provide that the parties may among other things stipulate as to the procedure to be followed,in the proceeding.10 CFR 52.753,13/
11/ ALAS-271, i4RCI-M/5 4/8, 482 (May 19,1975).
12/ Chapter 0106, Section 034.
M/ "[T]he parties may stipulate in writing...or orally during the hearing, any relevant fact....
The parties may also stipulate as to the pro-cedure'to be followed in the proceeding.
Such stipulations may, on motion of all parties, be recognized by the presiding officer to govern the conduct of the proceeding."
9 D
0 ow O
QI
)
s dO3 1.
3 l
l
.}
v 7-The Staff notes that the utilization of a Special Master by a Licensing Board tio handle prehearing discovery disputes is not'a ned or novel innovation in !!P.C antitrust licensing proceedings. The Licensing Scard ir Duke E successfully utilized the services of a Special Master to handle prehearing discovay probleis. Tne Specict Master in the Duke catter relieved the Licensing Coard of the tost i
of reviewing prehecring discovery disputes and in St6ff's opinica e>.-
l pedited'the licensing process.
The services of a Specioi :: aster to hcndle pretrial discovery 2
mietters hcs ciso bcen successf ully utili.'eJ by the court 5 in cc. ple::
antitrust matters.
For example, in Fi r[,t im:. H na Ele.rn ic Re. v.
i./
Ieua-Illin~ois Cac, and Elect.ric C>., ' ~ Ln c ction for tr ebic: dac gas end 1,
injuactive relief brought under the Sheraan /ct cgt. inst Len utilitics
-and an unincorporated.ssociaticn on the grounds thatthe defend: tots had acted tn prevent the issuance.of certain construction pemits.
Drly in I
discovery the trial judge appointed a master to examir.e the volures of i
evidence that were being submitted by the parties and crdered that the master hear the entire case and make such rulings, findings of fact, and conclusions of'laa as necessary and recort then to the court. 16/ Tiie 8th l
14/ In tue,atter of Dunc P. iter Comosnv (Ocence l' nits 1, 2 & 3 and McGuira Units 1 and 2)-Rocket 25. w-269A, 50-270A, 50 237A, 50-369A and 50-370A.
Prchearing Order :iuaner 8 (Dated October 25,1973)(1ss ue j
involved attorney-client privilege).
,l_5,/ 245 F.2d 613 (8t!1 Cir.), cert. denied, 355 U.S. 871 '(1957).
5 16/ Id. at 626.
~
l b$ JD e
wyo%n7.n s
s 1
J Wu 1
gg d
s,e 3 r-.+,-rw---
=ri-r+
-e-
~
- +
- y*'.wt-rw
- ~y
--wy
---"r-
=
J
' Circuit held that -there was an obvious pos,sibility of oppression and hardship unless discovery proceedings were expeditiously and continually supervised by a master, and therefore the appoint:r.ent f
was ' appropriate. b Accordingly, the Staff submits: (1) there is no conflict between s
. the procedure employed by the Licensing Board Md the f.EC l'anual, (2) the stipulation was agreed to by all parties and (3) the Licer: sing Board properly exercised its authority in appointing a Special !! aster pursuant to the stipulation of the parties.
{
e 4
s 4
i e
T7/ Id.
~
4 DQ
\\
A o l' o p g
7(
A M-u.J 0
a
.=wr-
~
w
,a.,
g..
9 II. THE LICEllSI'llG BOARD SHOULD TREAT THE SPECIAL MASTER'S REPORT AS A RECOMMEtlDATI0il 0?!LY.
As discussed above in Part II, the flRC Staff believes that the Licensing Board did not err in appointing the Special Master and ruling that his report uns binding cn the parties.
yaever, in vicu o f the na'ture' of the ob'jections by the City and th
- cpartn.ent concerning the findings of the Special Master, (See PartIV, infr..) the misunderstandin; of the parties es to the meanir.g of "the agreement",18/ cnd the fact that in the absence of the stipulation to refer the privilege clairs to the Special Master the Licensing.Coard would have had the sole respons-ibility to rule on the privilege clairc, the Staff believes that the Licensing Board should t eview the Sp cial Caster's 'Paports, treating them as recommendations only. El The Staff has argued that the role of the Special lbster ucs valid.
Assuming arguendo.that the Appeal Board rules that it was not, the Staff believes, that the Licensing Board shoul'd independently revicu the con-tested documents.
1,8/ See ilotes 3 and 4, sudra.-
~
1_9f The Staff believes that any suggestion that the members of the 9
Licensing Board should not bc exposed to documents which ultimately are protected from discovery through application of privilege is unnecessary.
In all trials without a jury, the judge-is considered able to exclude evidence before him and yet render a fair, decision
. unaffected by the kncun but excluded evidence.
The members of the Licensing Board are,no less able.
V o k k A.
S g
g 7 g-Al_J].llnLa n
^
III. THE APPEAL BOARD SHOULD ?!0T DIRECT CERTIFICATION OF THE MERITS OF THE SPECIAL MASTER'S RULINGS The Staff believes that any consideration no.! by the Appeal Board of the merits of the ~Special Master's rulings would be prer.;ature.
The Licensing Board is responsible for ruling on matters of evidence, 20/and shtuld.have the 9pportunity to issue its rul.ings.
In short, Staff asserts that the issue of the merits of the Special 1: aster's rulings are not ripe for appellate review at this tir:e.
IV. THE SPECIAL MASTER ERRED AS A D.1IER OF LA'!
A.
THE SPECIAL MASTER ERRED IM FIMDI!Fi DOCU:T.NTS PPlVlLEGED AND UOT SUBJECT 10 DISCO'!ERY 03 GRCUMD5 OTER THl.a iHOSE ASSERTED BY THE PARTY CLAI;'.!MG THf. PRIVILEGE
~
CEI has claimed that nur.crous documents sought in discovery ara privileged and thus not discoverable.
For-the purpose of this brief tuo categories of such documents will be considered: (1) those documents claimed by CEI to be protected only by the attorney-client privilege, and (2) those.docut.unts claimed by CEI to be privileged only by virtue of the work product rule. Certain documents claimed by CEI to be protected only by the attorney-client privilege were _found by the Master to be privileged under the work product rule.
Certain documents claimed by CEI to be protected only _by the work product rule were found by the Master to be privileged under the attorney-client privilege.
D[
D yel U
20/
- 10. CFR ss2.718(c), (1).
mg-}1 9
_S-a e
^
11
'Both the attorney-client privilege and the attorney's " work product" privilege are available to parties in proceedings before the fluclear Regulatory Commission.
Section 2.740(b)(1) of the Rules of Practice specifically excepts privileged raatters from the scope.
of discovery. El And Section 2.740(b)(2) provides for protection of
. disclosure duriiig' discotery of the attcruey's work product. 22/
It is well established that the attcrney-clicnc privilcca cen be claicad only by. the client, 2_3_/ and can be cc asidsed uaived if not asserted. EI Furthermore, the client has the burcen of establishing the l
existence of th't privilege. El It is clear, then, that CEI.:aived th(
attorney-client privilege v. hen it failed to s;;ccifically asser'. it.
l'aving failed to spec'fically cssert the attor.ny-cli. int privihce when i
c1 aim its bene Tit. The elaiming it for other docu. cats, CEI cannot nc.:
privilege is " personal" to CEI, and the Special Master cannot find it on behalf of CEI.
2_l] 10 CFR s2.740(b)(1).
22/ 10 CFR 62.740(b)(2).
23/ 8,Wigmore, Evidance 52321, at 629 (Mcnaughten rev.1961).
24/ Maaida v. Centinental fan Co.,12 F.R.D. 74, 77 (S.D.N.Y.1951)
.hcild that the intent to waive may be expressed by'an " omission to speak and act."
' 25/ ' International - Paner Co. v. Fi reboard. Corp., 63 F.R.D. 88, 94
- ' (O. Del. G74); McNeice v. Oil Carriers Joint Venture, 22 F.R.D.
'14 (E.D. Pa. 1958).
D c o El x
3.S 7 g
g L
.a
)
~g
cs 12-1:
The Special Master also found that certain documents clairr.ed by CEI to be protected from discovery under the attorney-client privilege were not so protected but were within the work product doctrine and so not discoverable for that reason.
For the reasons noted belo. it is subaitted that the Special Master's protection of the docut..:nts on the r
t ground of work prbduct not asserted by CEI was erroneous.
=
'inen CEI' asserted only. the attornt.y-client privilege tith respect to one category of docu".cnts and the work product rule with respect to a different category, the only reasonable inference is that CEI wcs not claiming protection under both the work product cnd the etteracy-client.
1 doctrine.
Surely, CEI could have asserted both privileges.
But CCI i
' deliberately chose not to cssart _ beth, and therciore shoult' be held to have'uaived the unasserted work product rule with respect tu this category of documonts.
^
THE SPECI AL MASTER ERRED Ill SUSTAlill"G CLAIMS 0F PRIVIi.ECC B.
FOR DOCUMENTS FOR UHICH CCI UAS UMABLE TO PROYE THE AUTMC"$,
THE RECIPIEUTS, TIE DISTRIBUTEES CR THE ADDRE55CES The party asserting a privilege to withhold a document from
' discovery has the burden of showing the existence of the privilege with 5/ Thus the party asserting that
. respect to that particular document. 2
-26/ Id.
1
^
- ]D 6 v w JU w Jb
. S _,1..
_a
.,r m.
4 the ; attorney-client privilege protects a document from discovery must show that the document was a confidential coir:r.unication by that party as a client to his attorney -for a purpose of receiving professional legal services. 22/ nd the party' asseri.ing the protection of a docu-A ment under the work product doctrine as embodied in 92.740(b)(2) of a
]
the Rules af Pra'ctice must establish thct the decumant will disclose the mental impressions, legal theorin, conclu:icas cr opinice - of thct party's attorney concerning the proc 2eding, or v.as pmpared in intici-pation of or for a hearing. El CEI has been unchie to identify the authors of cer!.ain docc:.v:nts i
claimed by it to be privilegad.
Thus with res r:... to ' hc:e d:.cr :nts it is not kncun whether they ucre written bj cither the clic:t or t!.2 attorney. That being so, it is hard to see hcw such docurents can be pratected under either the attorney-client priviloc or thc. cork pec-4 duct rule. El Staff's position therefore is that..!.cn CEI cannot specifically identify the author of a docurent, that docu:=nt is dis-coverable..
22/ See.6 Wigmore, Evidence TMc!laughton ed. 1961) 52292 at 554 28/ 10 CFR 12.740(b)(2)..
29/ The case of flatta v. Heaan, 392 F.2d 686 (10th Cir.1960) is
?
particularly pertinent with respect to CCI's work product claim when the author of the document is. admittedly unkncwn.
In that case documents were claimed to be authored by the client's attorneys,
but were held by the court not protected from discovery because the client could not identify which.particular attorney was the author.
J,d. at 693-94 x
"D m
D J
ovI
[
O "g ~Q"
.3jljmJ]_1 a
l-
/
14-Similarly, CEI has been unable to' identify the persons to whom certain other ' documents were distributed. The Staf f believes that this fact alone, like unkno.:n authorship alona, should be sufficient to render the docun.0nts discoveraale.
- CO:!CLUSNI:
{
Accordingly, the Staff submits that:
1 (1) The Ato:nic Safety aid Licensing Appocl Cosed should not 2
direct the At0mic Safety and Licen:.ing %cd to certi ~y to tne & real Board the :,uestion of the validity of th: role plLyed by i.he Sp'.c el i
Mas te r.
~
(2).' Th role of the Special Mc. ster u6s valid.
( 3-) The Licensing Board should. treat the Special faster's tun' ct i
- as a recot:=endation only.
(4) The Appeal Board should not direct certification of the acrits of the Special Master's ings.
(5) The Special 14 ster's rulings were incorrect as a matter of law.
4 (a) The Special itester erred in finding documents i
privileged and not subjecti to discovery on grounds r
other than those asserted' by the party claiming the privilege.
D
^
E<
y il
.w m
n
- g-k l
_ J] 7JL _a g
e n-y,n-
-.---w-4 -,. - -
--4 m
.,a.,
4o 3
y
,e
-g,,--
m y-y y.4m9
,-4
,g (w
y-4 4
y
- m.
15-(b) The Special Master erred in sustaining claims of privilege for docutants for which CEI was unable to prove the authors, the recipients, the distri-butees, or the addressces.
Respectfully sub:.iitted,
+e
,3 s.. u,.. - ~. ; p.,.-
2 s
7.ssistant C iof a ;.i t,'.
Counsel for..RC S t.ai f s.._
!..., F,.
Lu,_
.o,.
Counsel for ";3.C Staff Dated at Sethesdt, Marylcnd this 12th day of Septeidar 1975.
0 D
0 oa p~
-d 1
D a I J )
I_
., a
UilITED STATES OF AI4ERI;A NUCLEAR REGULATORY C0'i:lISSIO:1 BEFORE THE AT0!11C SAFETY APID LICEf!SIf;G APPEAL BOARD, In the flatter of
)
)
Tile TOLEDO EDIS0:1 CC::PAl4Y and
)
flRC Dochet :los. 50-346A TiiE CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLhl"It!ATli;G )
50-500A COMPN 1Y
)
50 501A (Davis-Besse fluclect Pcwer Station, )
Units 1, 2 & 3)
)
)
THE CLEVELAIID ELECTRfC ILLU:1:*:ATIl!G )
URC Docket *:cs. 53-4 ~0A C0y.PA:1Y, ET AL.
)
50-M1A (Perry !!aclear Power Plant,
)
Units 1 & 2)
)
CERTINICATE CF,5ThVICE I hert by certify s...,t cor,ir, of S TAFr' S L:. IE. I: nEsp:/:sE TC Tor eRER OF ll!E ATO:'IC S/JETY :30 LICI"!S!:;G APPE;.3 c.G;s. OF ;.;;rc sT p,,,
s.,,
' dated Septeri:cr 12, 1975, in the capti.
- d ratter, hece Wen :... fed Upon the folicvrir.g by d=n. it ir. the UqiLed Stat ~, :m il, ii en ciass,
or air rail. thir. lZtn tiy of 52ptc2cr 1970:
Douglas V. Rigler, Esq.
!4elvin G. Carg:r, Esq.
Chairnan, Atocic S:!ety and P. O. Box 7513 Licensing Board Washington, D.C.
200a4 Foley, L;rdner, llolla!>auch and Jacobs Docketing and' Service Section Schanin Cuilding Of fi ce of *.hn Secr & uj 815 Connecticut Avenue, II.U.
U.S. iluclear Regulatory Connnission Washington, D.C.
20006 Washington, D.C.
20555 Ivan U Smith, Eso John-Lcasdale, Esq.
Atomic. Safety and Licensing Board Cox, Langford T. Brev:n U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Cennissicn 21 Dupont Circle, I!.W.
Washington, D. C.
20555 Hashington, D.C.
20036 Joseph J. Saunders, Esq.
Mr. John it. Frysiak Steven Charno, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Li. censing Bonrd Antitrust Division U.S. !!uclear Regulatory Cor.wission P. O. Box 7513 Washington, D.C.
20555 Washington, D.C.
20044
- Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Reuben Coldberg, Esq.
l Panel David C. Iljclafelt, Esq.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Con:aission 1700 Pennsylvania Avnnue, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20555.
Washingten, D
. y0(g6 D
D oc f
~
Q T }A l l. S n _a O'g 0
o
2-Edward A. Matto, Esq.
Robert D. Hart, Esq.
Assistant Attorney General Department of Law-Chief, Antitrust Secticn 1201 Lakeside Avenue 30 East Broad Street,15th Floor Cleveland, Ohio 44114 Colua. bus, Ohio 43215 i
John C. Engic, Presiderit Geurge Chuplic, Esq.
AMP-0,.Inc.
Comissioner of Light a Powur Municipal Cuilding City of Cleveland 20 High Str'et 1201 Lakeside Avenne Hamilton, Chio 45012 Cleveland, Ohio 44114 Ocnald II. Hauser, Esq.
Karen H. Adhins, Esc.
i.
flanaging Attorn y Assis".ent Attci n.y Ceneral The Cleveltnd Electric Anti;.rus t Sec+ ico Illua:itiating Cor ;,any 30 East Broac Strce 15th floor l
55 Public Sqare Coluthus, Onio 43215 Clevelcnd, Ohio 44101 Chrisiopher C. Schraff, Er :.
4 Leslie I!cury, Esq.
Assistant Attcrney Mnert:1 l
Fuller, Mcnry, bdge & Snyder Envircn.:entol Lw 5. %
300 'adiscr. Avenue 301 Ecst Bracd Stmot. E." Ficor Toledo, Ohiu 43604
' Col u:.hu,, Ohio 4.',21 5 Thomas A. Hayuha
'ltr. Raymnd. KoMis, Di rector Executi v.. Vice Prasident of Public Utilii.ics Chio Edisor; Csm?r.ny City of Clevelad 47 l: orth !!ain St'reet' 1201 Lakeside Avcnue Ahren, Ohio 44303 Cleveland, Ohio 441 :4 Thomas J.' Munsch, Esq.
Gerald Charnof f, Esq.
General Attorney thn. Bradford Reynolds, Ee.g.
Duquesne Light Company Shah, Pittrucn, Potts ? Tcv..hridge 435 Sixth Avenue 910-17th Strtet,i.W.
Pittsburgh, P:nnsylvanin 15219 Washington, D.C.
20005 Wallace L. Duncan, Esq.
Richard M. Firestone, ~sq.
Jon T. Brown, Esq.
Assistant Attorney Gcncral Duncan, Brown, Weinberg & Palmer Antitrust Section 1700 Pennsylvania Avenue, lieW.
30 East Broad Street,15th Flcor Washington, D.C.
20006 Colu;r.hus, Chio 43215 David Mc?!eil Olds Wallace E. Brand, Esq.
' Recd, Smith, Shac & McClay 1000 Connecticut Avenue Union Trust Building Suite 1200 Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15230 Washington, D.C.
20036 Frant.R. Clokey, Esq.
[
James B. Davis Special Assistant Attorney General Director of Law Room 219, Toune House Apartments City of Cleveland
- Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17105 213 City Hall Cleveland, Ohio 44114 e
m D
v o A)
D 1GIL
3 Alan S. Rosenthal, Chairman Richard S. Sal: man Atomic Safety and Licensing Ato.:iic Safety end Licensing Appeal Board Appeal Board U.S. fluclear Regulatory Com.ission U.S. !!uclear Rngulatory Cc nission Washington, D.C.
20555 Washington, D.C.
20055 141chael C. Farrar Victor F. Creanslade, Jr.
Ator,iic Sciety and Licensing Principal Ste;i Counst.l Appeal Board The' Cleveland Eleci.ric Ilivminatina U.S. !!uclear Regulatory Ccriission Cc pany Washington, D.C.
20555 P. O. 3: x 50')0 Cl evel wi, 0.:i <
44101 d o3 c pn it. Rierer Re::c, Smi th, Sh.'
- 7. "cC!:y Suite 404 I4di son Buil di r.g,.*:.U.
Wu hic.gton, D.C.
20005 13 O
.( -
l I
'l
- l!E,I.'~l.nsy,ae
~ ~ ~
Coans.:1 for 7: Maff 4
O D
O oo
.s g-F n
.J.].1_
a 4
.