ML19329E307
| ML19329E307 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Midland |
| Issue date: | 09/25/1973 |
| From: | Ross W, Watson K CONSUMERS ENERGY CO. (FORMERLY CONSUMERS POWER CO.), WALD, HARKRADER & ROSS |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8006120615 | |
| Download: ML19329E307 (4) | |
Text
6
~
UNITED STATEJ OF AMERICA BEFORE THE ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION
/d5=73.
In the Matter of
)
50- 329 AY'/
)
Docket Nos.
CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY
)
50-330A (Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2)
)
MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF SUBPOENAED DOCUMENTS Consumers Power Company
(" Applicant") moves the Board for an order compelling counsel for Robert Daverman to produce immediately documents responsive to the Daverman subpoena.
The subpoenaed documents were due on August 27, 1973.
On September 20, 1973, Washington counsel for Daverman advised the undersigned that documents responsive to Applicant's subpoena to Robert Daverman were in its
" possession" (See letter attached as Appendix A hereto).
However, counsel has refused to produce thes9 responsive documents "pending the Board's ruling" on Daverman's Motion to require Applicant to pay him consulting fees for his efforts relating to the subpoena.
The dispute between Applicant and Mr. Daverman relates - to compensation, not to the relevance or producibility of the documents in counsel's possession.
Applicant has agreed 1
1/
Applicant's response to said Motion is due on Friday, September 78, 1973.
That response will explain Applicant's opposition to compensation to Mr. Daverman.
1 1
i
- **uo Or
/>7
- 7;.,4 -..-
2-that, if ordered to do so, it will promptly compensate Mr. Daverman for his efforts.
Thus, there is no reason to condition the production of these responsive documents upon the crior resolution of the compensation issue by the Board.,
Withholding the Daverman documents is particularly unjustifiad in light of the fact that the deadline for filing Applicant's exhibits in this proceeding is less tha three weeks away.
Our review of those responses. to the Daverman subpoena which we recently received indicates that they con-tain a wealth of information essential to the preparation of our exhibits, cross examination, and direct testimony.
Most of these documents were requested in much earlier discovery demands against the parties and non party municipals, but were not provided in response thereto.
Indeed, some of the Daverman materials received to date contain data that the municipals and cooperatives have claimed were unavailable or 1
were too burdensome to compile.
)
While even the immediate release of the withheld material may not enable us to incorporate all of the data j
contained therein in exhibits to be filed within three weeks,
\\
counsel's continued refusal to release these documents denies Applicant documents to which it is clearly entitled.
The refusal also gravely prejudices our ability to meet other pre-hearing and hearing deadlines established by the Board.
e
. In light of Applicant's immediate need for this material, we request that the Chairman initiate a conference call to discuss the question raised by this Motion.
In this manner, the question of production will not be delayed pending Applicant's response to, and the Board's action upon, the question of compensation.
WHEREFORE, Consumers Power Company moves"the Board for an order compelling counsel for Robert Daverman to produce immediately documents in his possession which are responsive to the Daverman subpoena.
Respectfully submitted, Wm. Warfield Ross Keith S. Watson Wald, Harkrader & Ross 1320 Nineteenth S treet, N.W.
Washington, D. C.
20036 September 25, 1973 Of Counsel:
Harold P.
Graves, Esquire Consumers Power Company 212 West Michigan Avenue Jackson, nichigan 49201
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION In the Matter of
)
)
Docket Nos. 50-329A CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY
-)
and 50-330A (Midland Units 1 and 2)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF SUBPOENAED DOCUMENTS, dated September 25, 1973, in the above-captioned matter have been served on the fol-lowing by deposit in the United States mail, first class or air mail, this 25th day of September, 1973:
Jerome Garfinkel, Esq., Chairman Dr.
J. V. Leeds, Jr.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board P. O. Box 941 l
Atomic Energy Commission Houston, Texas 77001 Washington, D.
C.
20545 William T.
Clabault, Esq.
Hugh K. Clark, Esq.
Joseph J. Saunders, Esq.
P. O. Box 127A David A.
Leckie, Esq.
Kennedyville, Maryland 21645 Public Counsel Section Antitrust Division James Carl Pollock, Esquire Department of Justice 2600 Virginia Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D. C.
20530 Washington, D. C.
20037 Joseph Rutberg, Jr., Esq.
Antitrust Counsel for AEC Regulatory Staff Atomic Energy Commission Washington, D.
C.
20545 Wallace E. Brand, Esq.
Antitrust Public Counsel Section P. O. Box 7513 Washington, D.
C.
20044 Atomic Safety and Licen11ng Board Atomic Energy Commission Washington, D.
C.
20545 Keith S. Watson 4
c' APPENDIX A L AW OrricEs SPIEGEL & McDIARNIID 2600 VIRGsN!A AVENUE,N W.
WASHINGTON, O C. 20037 er*8cc
- '*ct' September 20, 1973 CCCERT C MCDIARMIO C AN][R A J STR(EEL Coctet A Ja SLO N.
TELEPHONE 12o21 3 33.s e eo JAMES N beO R W O O D
. JAMES C ARL POLLOCR Keith Watson, Esq.
Wald, Harkrader & Ross 132 0 19th S treet, N.W.
Washington, D. C.
20036 Re:
Daverman Documents
Dear Keith:
I am considerably disturbed over your refusal to return the Daverman documents furnished via Mr. William Holmes of the Grand Rapids firm of Warner, Norcross & Judd.
I In view of your attitude regarding these documents, I now re-quest that evervthing in possession of your office or that of the Grand Rapids firm be treated with confidentiality in accordance with the Board's order concerning other non-parties.
You will note that I included a request for return of these occuments pending a ruling by the Board on my Motion To Quash Or Condition the Daverman subpoena.
I am now re-questing that you inform me immediately of the names of persons who have examined the documents already furnished, and the number of copies which have been made.
With respect to your request that the remainder of the documents be supplied, the answer is "no" pending the Board's ruling.
I might add, that all documents requested by Dr. Face have been compiled and are now in my possession.
They will be furnished when and if the Board so orders.
You should be prepared, if the Board should order the subpoena quashed, to return all documents, all copies and l
any work papers concerning them.
1 I
l
e
' Keith Watson, Esc.
September 20, 1973 Page Two If you cannot agree to treating the documents furnished by Daverman with confidentiality informally, I would file a motion requesting a protective order.
Sincerely, James Carl Pollock JCP:jh cc: Wallace Brand, Esc.
Joseph Rutberg, Esq.
Board Members e
D 4
e y
7--
.- -