ML19329C765

DOJ Motion to Reject or Strike Utils Reply to Oppositions Directed to Refiled Motion for Summary Disposition.Pleading Outside Rules of NRC & in Direct Contravention to Previous ASLB Rulings

ML19329C765
Person / Time
Site:	Perry, Davis Besse
Issue date:	10/14/1975
From:	Bell R, Berger M, Charno S JUSTICE, DEPT. OF
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
Shared Package
ML19329C766	List: ML19329C765 ML19329C771
References
NUDOCS 8002190882
Download: ML19329C765 (3)

Text

-

'o_;

i s

0-SP f.m\\ J..rh b p ? B.: A 1 T -

M e

v:

x.- !y

• NN I

d T

Ob g y \\$N UNITED STATES OF AMERICA m

~

NUCLL R REGULATORY CCM:1ISSION 9

w.,,,,

,,n g..

cu t.

c. %, e p Y A./.

9 BEFORE T;iE COMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BDARD A

k0 In the Matter of

)

)

The Toledo Edison Company

)

The Clev'i md e'=ctric Illuminating

)

Docket No. (50-34GA]

u...

Company

)

(Davis-Sesco Muclear Powcr Station)

)

)

The Cleveland Electric Illuminating

)

Docket "os.

50 *?0A Company, et al.

)

and SC-441A (Perry Plant, Units 1 and 2)

)

).

The Tolef.o Edison Ccapany, et al.

)

Docket Noc. 50-500A (Davis-Bosse Nuclear Po'.;er St. tion,

)

and 50-501A Units 2 and 3)

)

n n.

a.in._,-,

s.-.v.

.m.c,n r o., m_. r.

+

v.

s g e, q m. p.,.--., -...,..,

..v

.s.

Pursuant to Section 2.730 of the Commissicn's Rules of Practice (10 C.F.R. 52.730), the 0 apartment of Justice hereby moves the Licensing Board to reject cr, in the alternativa, to strike Applicants' Reply to Oppositions to Refiled Motion for Summary Dispocition (hereinafter " Reply"), becauce it is a pleading filed outside the Rules of this Commission and ':2cause it was filed in direct contravention of previous rulings of this l

Board.

On Oct: bar 7,1975, Applicants filed a motion for leave to file a pleading not otherwise authorized under the Rules; attached tio that motion was the subjcet pleading.

The Appli-cants' Reply is clecrly a filing not contemplated by the Rules

(

f u.,,

)

80021908d

,,}

A

- m :.,, ;

r-r-.=-.

of thic Commiscica.

Further, A review of the Reply clearly indi-cates that it is dir:cted not to the'wfitten opposition to their refiled motion, but to the oral argument which took plcce at the prehearing confocence on September 18, 1975,' and to holdings in the Sixth Prchcaring Conference Order, dated October 2, 1975.

In addition, the Applicants have already argued and briefed the issucs which are the subject of their Reply upon too many occa-m.

sions.

Finally, the procedure adopted by the Applicants--filing a n otion for leave to file an unauthorized pleading and attaching that pl,ccding to the motion--has been specifically rejected by

.c this Conrd.

On April 30, 1974, then-Chairman Farmakides stated:

when you file a motion for leave to file with your document appended to it, I am not sure that that "ae.s the tre-it, ci the ru? m.

If yer

.' -. t te W i n a n.otloa f o:: laava to 12, l..; ce.pacat iy, and

.an file your document., and certar_nly you

.'f Laks a little bit more tir.e, but I think it would be more fair to all

~

parties (Tr. 3 3 5 )..

This statement became a basis for the Board's Order of May 14, 1974, which held:

"as clearly stated at the Prehearing Con-ference on April 30, the Ocard decs not intend to consider c?ocu-ments or pleadings filed cutside the rules."

Again, in Pre-hearing Conference Order #2, dated July 25, 1974, the.Soard denied a motion by the City of Cleveland to file an untimely, supplemental brief based upon its carlier rulings and held at page 15 ".

. absent a showing of' substantial good cause--not found here--[carlier] rulings will be strictly adhered to."

The i

l Department submits that the Applicants have made no attempt to 1

2 I

..e e.

i e

demonstrate good cauce cf the nature and magnitude which would require acceptance of their late-filed, supplemental Reply plead-ing.

For the foregoing reasons, the Depart:r.ent respectfully urges T

the Board to deny Apg]icants' motion to file an unauthori::ed plead-j ing or, in the alternative, to strike that pleading from the i

1 reccrd.

i Respectfully submitted, d

\\-

STEVE:1 M. CL rho

-e

')

i 5

pG /

.an/;&-

RUTif CPEEi?3N N BF.LL i

/,'....~ :.,..'

I R. < <.,:

/

MELVIN G.

.iEUUh R

)

ii

~

,f '

/

'uCT?.4

/.

(A,%Y. l.4.Al,,,

ij

,I,,.,......._... L..:., e m.

n.. T r.Cs.. g G.

,y

c..

4 i

, //$Q r

.. A.. :w Y

/sNEf R.

USAU Attorneys, Antitruct Division Departmonc of Ju.;tice Washington, D.C.

20530 i

Dated:

October 14, 1975 i

1 1

1 4

'I 1

_