ML19329C729
| ML19329C729 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Davis Besse, Perry  |
| Issue date: | 09/09/1974 |
| From: | Goldberg R, Hjelmfelt D CLEVELAND, OH, GOLDBERG, FIELDMAN & HJELMFELT |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8002190848 | |
| Download: ML19329C729 (14) | |
Text
f. j' l f UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board In the Matter of
)
The Toledo Edison Company and
)
The Cleveland Electric Illuminating )
Company
)
Docket No s. 50- 34 6A (Davis-Besse Nuclear Power
)
50 -440A Station, Unit 1)
)
50-441 A
)
The Cleveland Electric Illuminating )
Company, et al.
)
(Perry Nuclear Power Plant,
)
Units 1 and 2)
)
OBJECTIONS OF THE CITY OF CLEVELAND TO APPLICANTS' INITIAL INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR DOCUMENTS The following objections are made by the City of Cleveland (Cleveland) with respect to the indicated Initial Interrogatorie s and Request for Documents propounded by Applicants. Cleveland believes that many of the interroga-tories and requests for production of documents to which no objection is made herein are burdensome and of dubious relevance; nevertheless, in a spirit of cooperation and accommodation, where the documents or informa-tion exists, Cleveland will undertake to respond to those interrogatories and document requests.
l 0
I90 h
l
~
m
, 4 Interrogatory No. 1 I
This interrogatory is too broad. It refers to no time period but would apply to the entire period of time since Cleveland was incorporated.
Further, the interrogatory would require Cleveland to do legal research J
fo r the Applicants. Cleveland may not be required to do Applicants' legal i
research.
Interrogato ry No. 13 i
The information sought is contained in FPC Form 12. Cleveland will produce copies of the FPC Form 12 filings pursuant to Document Request No. 28. No reason exists why Cleveland should be burdened by abstracting this data for Applicants.
O' Rourke v.
RKO Radio Pictures, Inc., (D. hias s. 1939), 27 F. Supp. 996.
Interrogatory No. 16 The information requested with respect to electric customers ceasing to take service from AIELP duplicatec the materials requested in Document Request No.12.
O'Rourke v. Radio Pictures, Inc., sunra.
Interrocatory No. 18 The information requested duplicates the materials requested in Document Requests Nos. 14 and 15.
O'Rourke v.
Radio Pictures. Inc.,
i sup ra.
Interrogatories Nos. 20, 20(a). 20(b) i The information requested is availab! from Cleveland's rate f
schedules which will be produced in response to Document Request No. 16.
O'Rourke v. RKO Radio Pictures, Inc., suora.
i l
1 m
i Interrogatory No. 20(c)
The information requested duplicates the material requested in Document Request No. 19 O'Rourke v. RKO Radio Pictures. Inc., supra.
Interrogatory No. 21 9
This request is too broad, onerous and burdensome in that it i
would require Cleveland to supply, inter alia, the name of each city council member serving since 1960.
Interrogatory No. 24 Cleveland objects to so much of this request as would require it i
to supply information relating to its present potential customers. Revela-tion of such information would contribute to the already overwhelming competitive advantage enjoyed by CEI.
Interrocatory No. 27 The information requested is available from rate schedules which will be produced in response to Document Request No. 16. No reason exists for requiring Cleveland and it may not be required to prepare or abstract this information for the Applicants.
Interrogatory No. 31 l
Cleveland does not understand this interrogatory and, therefore, I
objects to it.
Interrogatory No. 33 The information requected duplicates the materials requested in
)
Document Request No. 20. O'Rourke v. RKO Radio Pictures, Inc., supra.
l
=.
l
_4 Interrogatory No. 34 I
i The requested information dup'_eates Document Reque st No. 5.
1 j
No reason exists for requiring Cleveland and it may not be required to abr,cract this information for the Applicants.
i Interrogatory No. 35 i
i The requested information duplicates Document Request No. 5.
I No reason exists for requiring Cleveland and it may not be required to prepare or abstract this information for the Applicants.
l Interrogatory No. 36 This request would require Cleveland to do legal research for i
Applicants.
i j
Interrogatory No. 38 The information requested duplicates the materials requested in Document Requests No. 24. O'Rourke v. RKO Radio Pictures, In c., supra.
)
Interrogatory No. 42 The information requested duplicates the materials requested in
)
Document Requests Nos. 36 and 37. O'Rourke v. RKO Radio Pictures.
l Inc., suora.
Interrogatory No. 54 The information requested duplicates the materials requested in i
Document Request No. 38. O'Rourke v. RKO Radio Pictures. Inc., supra.
Interrogatory No. 56 i
The information requested duplicates the materials requested in i
Document Request No. 39 O'Rourke v. RKO Radio Pictures. Inc., supra.
+.,n-
! i t
Interrogatory No. 57 4
The information requested duplicates the materials requested in l
Document Request No. 40. O'Rourke v. RKO Radio Pictures, Inc., supra.
l 1
Interrogatory No. 60 l
The information requested duplicates the materials requested in j
I Document Request No. 42. O'Rourke v. RKO Radio Picture s, Inc., supra.
l 1
l l
Interrogato ry No. 61 The information requested duplicates the materials requested in l
Document Request No. 4 3.
O'Rourke v. RKO Radio Picture s. Inc., supra.
Interrogatory No. 64 The request would require Cleveland to do legal research for 1
i Applicants which it may no be required to do.
Interrogatory No. 66 The information requested duplicates the materials requested in i
Document Request No. 48. O'Rourke v. RKO Radio Pictures, Inc., suora.
1 i
Interrogatory No. 71 j
The information requested is not relevant to any issue in this proceeding. Further, the information requested, if relevant at all, is relevant only with respect to remedies, j
Interrogatory No. 76 Cleveland objects to stating the reason of termination of any 4
1 employee. Such information is of a highly personal nature and has no 4
releva.2ce to any issue in this proceeding.
i i
I i
I l
I.-
~ _ _. _ _.. - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _, _ _. _ _ _ _..... _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _
]
i Interrogatory No. 78 The request is too vague to permit response.
Interrogatory No. 79 i
The responsibilities of the City Planning Commission are found in the ordinances and charter of the City of Cleveland. Applicants should be i
1 required to do their own legal research. Cleveland does not object to the remainder of this interrogatory.
i Interrogatory No. 80
.f The responsibilities of the Department of Finance of the City of Cleveland is a question of law. Applicants should be required to do their j
own legal research. The remainder of the interrogato r'/ is too vague to l
1 permit response.
i Interrogatory No. 81 This request calls for privileged information.
Interrogatory No. 82(c)
(
I The information requested is not relevant to any issue in this pro-ceeding. Even assuming, arguendo, that it were relevant, it would only be relevant to the issue of remedies.
Interrogatory No. 83 This request, in effect, requires Cleveland to state the facts which it will rely upon to prove its case.
U. S. v. Continental Can. (S. D. N. Y.
1958), 22 F R D 241. Moreover, the interrogatory calls for opinions, conclusions or contentions. Kluchenac v.
Oswald & Hess Co., (W. D. Pa.
. 1957), 20 F R D 87; California v.
The Jules Fribourg, (N. D. Calif. 1955),
19 F R D 432; Needles v.
F. W. Woolworth Co.. (E D Pa. 1952), 13 F R D 460. The object of discovery is the ascertainment of facts not opinions, conclusions or contentions. Cinema Amusements, Inc. v.
Leow's. In c.,
(D. Del. 1947), 7 F R D 318; cf. Caggiano v. Socony-Vacuum Oil Co.,
(D. hiass. 19 39), 27 F. Supp. 240; Ame rican & Foreign Ins. Co. v.
Richard Gibson & Sons, (D. hiass. 1940), 1 F R D 501; Doucette v. Howe, (D. hiass. 1939) 1 F R D 18; Ryan v.
Lehigh Valley R. R., (5. D. N. Y.
1946),
5 F R D 399. Aloreover, in light of the Board's Statement of Atatters in Controversy the request is immaterial.
Inter rouato ry No. 84 Cleveland objects for the reasons stated ith respect to Interroga-tory No. 83, above.
Inter rogatory No. 35 Cleveland objects for the reasons stated with respect to Interroga-to ry No. 8 3, above.
Interrogatory No. 86 Cleveland objects for the reasons stated with respect to Interroga-to ry No. 8 3, above.
Inter rocato ry No. 87 I
This interrogatory improperly requires Cleveland to define legal terms. Seff. v. General Outdoo r Advertising Co., (N. D. Chio 19 51),
11 F R D 597; Krt.'t_v. Washington & Jefferson Collece, (W. D. Pa. 1951),
11 F R D 503.
i
- Interrogatory No. 88 Cleveland objects for the reasons stated with respect to Interroga-to ry No. 83, above.
Interrogatory No. 89 Cleveland objects for the reasons stated with respect to Interroga-tory No. 8 3, above.
Interrogatory No. 90 Cleveland objects for the reasons stated with respect to Interroga-tory No. 8 3, above.
Inte r rogato ry No. 91 Cleveland objects for the reasons stated with respect to Interroga-to ry No. 83, above.
Inte r ro ga to ry No. 9 2 Cleveland objects for the reasons stated with respect to Interroga-to ry No. 8 3, above.
Inte rroeatory No. 93 Cleveland objects for the reasons stated with respect to Interrop-to ry No. 8 3, above.
Interrogatory No. 94 Cleveland objects for the reasons stated with respect to Interroga-to ry No. 8 3, above.
Interrogatory No. 96 This interrogatory relates solely to the issue of re.nedies, l
1 1
Document Request No. 1 This request requires Cleveland to do legal research for the Applicants. Cleveland may not be required to do so.
i Document Request No. 47
)
This request requires Cleveland to do legal research for the i
Applicants. Cleveland may not be required to perform legal research for i
Applicants.
Document Request No. 49 (a)(b)(c)
The documents requested have no r-levance to this proceeding.
Assuming, arguendo, that such documents are relevano, they are relevant only with respect to remedies.
Document Request No. 50 1
The documents requested have no relevance to this proceeding.
Assuming, arguendo, that such documents are relevant, they are relevant only with respect to remedies.
i Document Request No. 58 The requested documents are privileged.
i Document Request Nos. 59, 60, 61. 62, 63. 65, 66, 67 Cleveland objects to the foregoing requ
_,ts for the reasons stated with respect to Interrogatory No. 83, above.
l Document Request No. 64 The material requested should be obtained by Applicants directly i
l from the respective city council committees.
- It is clear from the discovery requests propounded by the Appli-cants that Applicants intend to re-litigate and re-argue the question of Matters in Controversy. This Board has had lengthy hearings regarding the matters in controversy and has issued its decision and order thereon.
Discovery should not be twisted into a device by which Applicants can once again argue those matters. Applicants throughout have prolonged these proceedings by re-arguing every point on every occasion. A short time schedule has been established for this proceeding. The parties should not be required to dissipate their time and energy covering matters already the subject of Board Orders.
Applicants have made repeated duplicating requests calling on the one hand for the production of documents and on the other hand for the same information in response to interrogatories. It is unduly burdensome on Cleveland to be required to produce documents and in addition to abstract the same data or make compilations of the same data in response to interrogatories. When Cleveland produces documents or responds to interrogatories it should be relieved of the burden of furnishing the same materials twice. For example, Document Requests Nos. 12, 14, 15, 19, 20, 24, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44 and 48 all appear to call for the production of data duplicating information requested by various inte r rogato rie s.
By not raising objections here, Cleveland does not waive any of its rights to refuse to answer any interregatory or produce any documen's
which upon inspection are found to be protected by any privilege or which call for information or documents that do not exist and would require Cleveland to prepare such information or documents.
Respectfully submitted, CITY OF CLEVELAND, OHIO
. ;a l. m (bj<l.h pg
<s
'/h([
/
By A I' Y b I
'.e /.
Reuben Goldberg/
/
David C. Hjelmicit Its Attorneys Reuben Goldberg David C. Hjelmfelt 1700 Pennsylvania Avenue, N. W.
Washington, D. C.
20006 Telephone (202) 659-2333 Herbert R. Whiting Director of Law Robert D. Hart Assistant Director of Law City of Cleveland City Hall Cleveland, Ohio 44114 Telephone (216) 694-2717 September 9,1974
Certificate of Service I hereby certify that service of the foregoing " Objections of the City of Cleveland to Applicants' Initial Interrogatories and Request for Documents" has been made on the following parties listed on the attach-ment hereto, this 9th day of September, 1974, by depositing copies thereof in the United States mail, postage prepaid.
e
~
.1
- eclE,! f.r/tll h,
David C. Hjeltnfelt /
Attachment
i t
ATTACHMENT seph J. Saunders, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Steven Charno, Esq.
U.S. Atomic Energy Commission Antitrust Division Washington, D. C.
20545 Department of Justice P st Office Box 7513 Mr. Frank W. Karas, Chief Washington, D. C.
20044 Public Proceedings Branch i
Office of the Secretary Abraham Braitman, Esq.
l U. S. Atomic Energy Commission Office of Antitrust and Indemnity Washington, D. C.
205.45 U. S. Atomic Energy Commission Washington, D. C.
20545 John B. Farmakides, Esq.
Ch.P rman William T. Clabault, Esq.
lstomic Safety and Licensing Board David A. Leckie, Esq.
U. S. Atomic Energy Commission Department of Justice Washington, D. C.
20545 Post Office Box 7513 Washington, D. C.
20044 John H. Brebbia, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Gerald Charnoff, Esq.
l Alston, Miller & Gaines Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge 1776 K Street, N. W.
910 - 17th Street, N. W.
Washington, D. C.
20006 Washington, D. C.
20006 Dr. George R. Hall Frank R. Clokey, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Special Assistant Attorney General U. S. Atomic Energy Conunission Room 219 - Towne House Apartments Washington, D. C.
20545 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17105 Benjamin H. Vogler, Esq.
Thomas J. Munsch, Jr., Esq.
Joseph Rutherg, Esq.
General Attorney Office of the General Counsel Duquesne Light Company Regulation 435 Sixth Avenue U. S. Atomic Energy Commission Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15219 Washington, D. C.
20545 David McNeil Olds, Esq.
Robert J. Verdisco, Esq.
John McN. Cramer, Esq.
Office of the General Counsel Reed, Smith, Shaw & McClay Regulation 747 Union Trust Building U. S. Atomic Energy Commission Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15219 Washington, D. C.
20545 John R. White, Esq.
Jon T. B rown, Esq.
Vice President and General Counsel Duncan, Brown, Weinberg & Palmer Ohio Edison Company Suite 777 47 North Afain Street 1700 Pennsylvania Avenue, N. W.
Akron, Ohio 44308 i
Washington, D. C.
20006 4
= _ -.
i 2
Page 2 ATTACHMENT (Continued) i h
Pennsylvania Power Company
}
l East Washington Street j
New Castle, Pennsylvania 16103 i
Leslie Henry, Esq.
i Fuller, Henry, Hodge & Snyder j
300 Madison Avenue i
Toledo, Ohio 43604 1
Donald H. Hauser, Esq.
j The Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co.
Post Office Box 5000 Cleveland, Ohio 44101 a
John Lansdale, Jr., Esq.
j Cox, Langford & Brown 21 Dupont Circle, N.W.
Washington, D. C.
20036 Alan S. Rosenthal, Chairman l
Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeals Board U. S. Atomic Energy Commission j
Washington, D. C.
20545 Dr. John H. Buck Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeals Board U. S. Atomic Energy Commission Washington, D. C.
20545 1
1 Dr. Lawrence K. Quarles Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeals Board j
U. S. Atomic Energy Commission i
Washington, D. C.
20545 i
C. Raymond Marvin, Esq.
Deborah M. Powell, Esq.
Antitrust Section 8 East Long Street Suite 510 Columbus, Ohio 43215 i
.