ML19322C015

Applicant'S Motion for Extension of Time Until 721215 for Filing Motion to Compel Response to Applicant'S Discovery Request.Certificate of Svc Encl

ML19322C015
Person / Time
Site:	Oconee, McGuire, Mcguire
Issue date:	11/15/1972
From:	Avery G, Ross W, Watson K DUKE POWER CO., WALD, HARKRADER & ROSS
To:	US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC)
References
NUDOCS 7912200733
Download: ML19322C015 (8)

Text

--

, 3 . 7,,,

]

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ATOMIC ENERGY COyJIISSION In the Matter of ) m Dockets Nos.f50-269 ; 50-270A,

) ~

DUKE POWER COMPANY )

- 87A,

) 50-369A, 50-370A (Oconee Units 1, 2& 3, )

McGuire Units 1 & 2) )

APPLICANT'S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF  !

l TIME FOR FILING MOTICN TO COMPEL ..

~~~

l RESPONSE TO APPLICANT'S DISCOVERY REQUEST

' To the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board:

Pursuant to Section 2.711 of the Commission's Rules of Practice, 10 C.F.R. Part 2, Duke Power Comp'ny (hereinaf ter I

" Applicant") moves the Atonic Safety and Licensing Board

(" Board") for an order extending the time to file a request for an order compelling a response or inspection, pursuant l

'i to Section 2.740 (f) (1) of the Rules, to certain of Applicant's Initial Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents

(" Initial Request"). Applicant requests that such time be extended to and including December 15, 1972.

In addition, it is requested that the Board provide that Applicant shall have 30 rather than 5 days from the date of each submission deemed -by an intervenor to be a full and complete response to a particular item in which to file a motion to compel _ pursuant to Section 2.740 (f) (1) of the Rules.

,'T 912 20 07?(3

Section 2.740 (f) (1) of the Rules provides that where a deponent or a party fails to respond, or evades, or 4 incompletely responds to a' request for production of docu-ments or answers to interrogatories , the party propodading the question will have five (5) days after the date of such action to request an order to compel a response or. production f

in accordance with the request. For purposes of that section, an evasive or incomplete response is treated as a failure to 4

answer or respond.

The Board, heretofore, in its Prehearing Conference ,

order dated September 7,1972, indicated a willingness to grant motions for extensions of time upon a showing of "goed cause" (p. 5) . We believe such good cause exists for the relief sought in this motion.

In its Initial Request, Applicant specified December 13 as the day by which the responses should be submitted. Counsel informally agreed that responses to items 1-4, 7, 17, 18, 39, 40, 55, 82, 84 and 91 would be submitted on November 13.

Pursuant to that agreement, Applicant received certain. responses-

~

on November 14 from the cities of Shelby and Lexington and the town of Landis. They' purport to be full. and complete responses to the specified items. It is our understanding that the L responses to the .13 items from-the remaining intervenors .will l be submittedishortly. l l

The three intervenors' submissions in response to the 13 requests raise a number of serious problems and illustrate the need for allowing much more than 5 days to file a motion pursuant to Section 2.740 (f) (1) in regard to each submission deemed to be full and complete.

For example, approximately 200 documents were submitted on November 14. A careful review of these documents must be undertaken before Applicant can determine whether or not a motion under Section 2.740 (f) (1) would be appropriate.

While this task may initially take less than the 30 days requested, it is apparent that once subsequent submissions are made the number of documents involved will be volumi-nous and the review, of necessity, will be quite time-consuming. Of course, where such review can be made in less than 30 days, Applicant would do so.

Because of the extent of the submission and the attendant difficulty of determining whether a submission is responsive to the question propounded, Applicant believes that it would be in the public interest and would expedite -

future procedures in this proceeding were Applicant permitted

. to make a full and -careful review of the documents and

-answers submitted. If the relief - requested herein were granted such a perusal could be made and a resolution of any problems

+

t might be achieved through further discussions with opposing counsel. In all likelihood, such steps could result in reducing, if not entirely eliminating, the need to apply to

' this Board for an Order directing further submissions in regard to Applicant's Initial Request. Also, because of the continuing submission process , we believe that there is good cause for the Board to grant the broader relief requested. Such action would reduce the need for Applicant to make repeated motions of a similar nature and would 1/

alleviate the Board's calender.~

1 We are authorized to state that counsel for the other parties to this proceeding have no objection in this instance to the requested extension of time to and including December

, 15, 1972. It also is our belief that such counsel have no objection to the broader relief requested.

WHE REFORE , Applicant requests that the time within which Applicant may file a request for an order compelling the cities of Shelby and _ Lexington and the town of Landis to respond or further respond to items 1-4, 7, 17, 18, 39, 40, 55, 82, 84 and 91 of ' Applicant's Initial. Request be extended 1/ According to the Board's Prehearing Conference Order, motions

~

for extension of time will be granted only _ on affidavit (p.5). i Since the facts , alleged in this pleading areElargely within the knowledge of. Applicant's counsel in this proceeding, the affidavit of Toni K. Golden is attached-hereto.

1 I

to and including December 15, 1972. Applicant further respectfully requests that the Board provide that Applicant shall have 30 rather than 5 days from the date of each sub-mission deemed by an intervenor to be a full and complete response to a partict. .ar item in which to file a motion to compel production on the ground that a response is incomplete, ovasive, or otherwise objectionable pursuant to Section . -

2. 740 ( f) (1) of the Rules .

Respectfully submitted, y p -_s - n ,

Wm. Warfie/d Ross eg-/

George A. Avery

.W W J , N Keith S. Watson

,' l ,-, ..

.. / . .a ,  :

-  ; (. > ' c .. _.

Toni K. Golden WALD, HARKRADER & ROSS ,

1320 Nineceenth Street, N.W.  !

Washington, D. C. 20036 Attorneys for Applicant Of Counsel:

William H. Grigg Vice President and General Counsel Duke Power Ccmpany 1 P.O. Bcx 2118 Charlotte, North Carolina 28201 I Nove:-Joe r 15, 1972 1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION In the Matter of )

) Docket Nos. 50-269A, 50-270A, DUKE POWER COMPANY ) 50-287A,

) 50-369A, 50-370A (Oconee Units 1, 2 & 3, )

McGuire Units 1 & 2) )

AFFIDAVIT District of Columbia ) ss.:

Toni K. Golden, being duly sworn, deposes and states:

I am counsel to Duke Power Company, Applicant in the above-captioned proceeding.

I have read the foregoing Motion for Extension of Time for Filing Motion to Compel Response to Applicant's Discovery Request.

I am familiar with the facts set forth in Applicant's Moti. All such facts set forth therein are true and correct to the best of my own personal knowledge and belief.

N llS.O n Toni K. Golden Subscribed and sworn to before me this 6 day of November, 1972.

Notary Public '

1//)

- ~

• • a 4

UNITED STATES dF AMERICA ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION In the Matter of )

) Docket Nos. 50-269A, 50-270A DUKE POWER COMPANY ) 50-287A (Oconee Units 1, 2& 3) 50-369A, 50-370A McGuire Units 1 & 2) )

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of the attached MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME FOR FILING MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSE TO APPLICANT'S DISCOVERY REQUEST and accompanying Affidavit, both dated November 15, 1972, in the above-captioned matter have

. been served on the following by deposit in the United States mail, first class or air mail, this 15th day of November, 1972.

Walter W. K. Bennett, Esquire J. O. Tally, Jr., Esquire P. O. Box 185 P. O. Drawer 1660 Pinehurst, North Carolina 28374 Fayetteville, N. Carolina 28302 Joseph F. Tubridy, Esquire Troy B. Connor, Esquire ,

4100 Cathedral Avenue, N. W. Reid & Priest .

Washington, D. C. 20016 1701 K Street, N. W.

Washington, D. C. 20006 John B. Farmakides, Esquire Atomic Safety and Joseph Rutberg, Esquire Licensing Board Panel Benjamin H. Vogler, Esquire Atomic Energy Commission Antitrust Counsel for Washington, D. C. 20545 AEC Regulatory Staff Atomic Energy Commission Atomic Safety and Washington, D. C. 20545 Licensing Board Panel Atomic Energy. Commission Mr. Frank W. Karas, Chief Washington, D. C. 20545 Public Proceedings Branch Office of the Secretary Abraham Braitman, Esquire of the Commission Special Assistant for. Atomic. Energy Commission Antitrust Matters Washington, D. C. 20545 Office of Antitrust and Indemnity Joseph Saunders, Esquire Atomic Energy Commission ' Antitrust Division Washington, D. C. 20545 Department of Justice Washington, D. C. 20530 9

'l William T. Clabault, Esquire J. A. Bouknight, Jr., Esquire David A. Leckie, Esquire David F. Stover, Esquire Antitrust Public Counsel Section Tally, Tally & Bouknight Department of Justice Suite 311 P. O. Box 7513 429 N Street, S . W.

Washington, D. C. 20044 Washington, D. C. 20024 .

Wallace E. Brand, Esquire Antitrust Public Counsel Section Department of Justice P. O. Box 7513 Washington, D. C. 20044 3

Wald, Harkrader & Ross

'a, By: . - , " . .

> f/._ - - _ _ . . _

Attorneys for Duke Power Company 1320 Nineteenth Street, N. W.

Washington, D. C. 20036 i

'?

4 i

, , , . . - . ,, - - , - . - s