ML19329C493

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Application for Issuance of Subpoena to R Kudukis Requiring Testimony at Continuation of Deposition on 750513 in Cleveland,Oh.Testimony Required for Purposes of Discovery
ML19329C493
Person / Time
Site: Davis Besse, Perry  Cleveland Electric icon.png
Issue date: 05/09/1975
From: Reynolds W
CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING CO., SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE, TOLEDO EDISON CO.
To:
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
Shared Package
ML19329C494 List:
References
NUDOCS 8002140870
Download: ML19329C493 (3)


Text

.

May 9, 1

~

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA i

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board In the Matter of

)

i

)

i THE TOLEDO EDISON COMPANY and

)

{

THE CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING

)

COMPANY

)

(Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station,

)

Docket Nos. 50-346A l

Unit 1)

)

50-440A 1

)

50-441A

)

THE CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING

)

COMPANY, ET AL.,

)

]

(Perry Nuclear Power Plant,

)

Units 1 and 2)

)

APPLICATION FOR ISSUANCE OF SUBPOENA 1.

Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. Section 2.720a, Applicants hereby request the Licensing Eoard to issue a subpoena to

~l Raymond Kudukis, Director Department of Public Utilities City of Cleveland l

1201 Lakeside Avenue Cleveland, Ohio 44114 requiring his attendance and testimony at the continuation i

of his deposition to be conducted at the offices of The Cleveland Electric Illuminating Ccmpany, 55 Public Square, j

Cleveland, Ohio, on May 13, 1975, at 9: 00 A.M.,

for the j

purposes of discovery in the above-captioned matter, and requiring him to remain in attendance until released by the Board.

i 2.

On April 30, 1975, Applicants commenced taking

)

8002140 MO g

l

.-.._.,_._m._.

_2 i

the deposition of Director Kudukis pursuant to the Notice I

of Depositions filed on April 7, 1975 Following the i

morning interrogation of Mr. Kudukis, it became apphrent I

i to Applicants' counsel that it would not be possible to complete Director Kudukis' deposition by the end of the day.

A discussion was held among counsel present at the deposition as to whether the deposition would continue late into the evening or adjourn at 5: 00 P.M.,

to be con-tinued at a later mutually agreed upon date.

Agreement was reached that the latter course would be followed and that Director Kudukis would return for the continuation of his deposition on another day.

A date of May 13, 1975 was tenta-tively agreed to, subject to Director Kudukis' availability.

3 During the course of the depositions taken on May 7, 1975, counsel for the City of Cleveland advised Ap-plicants that Director Kudukis would not be made available on May 13, and that counsel was opposing any continuation of his depos'r'on by Applicants at any time in the future.

Applicants submit that they are entitled to continue with the deposition of Director Kudukis and request issuance of the attached subpoena requiring him to attend and give tes-timony on May 13, 1975 4.

On the first day, Director Kudukis demonstrated a marked reluctance to respond to questions posed by Applicants'

,m counsel, and an inordinate amount of time was spent srar-ring with Director Kudukis and his counsel over the meaning of words with respect to which, as invariably proved to be the case, there was a common understanding by all par-ticipants at the outset.

As a result, Applicants' counsel was unable to interrogate Director Kudukis about a number of matters clearly within the scope of his responsibility as Directer of Public Utilities.

Applicants are clearly entitled to pursue these matters with Director Kudukis as part of their discovery in these proceedings, and there clearly is no justification for denying them this right.

5 Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. Section 2.740a, Applicants, on May 8, 1975, caused to be served by mail on Mr. Kudukis notice of deposition to be taken on May 13, 1975; copy of said notice was served on the parties hereto and on the Chairman and members of the Licensing Board.

WHEREFORE, Applicants move this Board to issue the requested subpoena and to deliver the executed subpoena to the undersigned counsel for Applicants, for service on the aforesaid witness.

Respectfully submitted, SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TRC'AERIDGE By:

.I x fbS

\\ e _.,J1.,

Wm. Bradfor6 Reynoldst Gerald Charnoff Counsel for Applicants Enclosure Dated:

May 9, 1975

...