ML19331A142
| ML19331A142 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Midland |
| Issue date: | 09/19/1973 |
| From: | Jablon R MICHIGAN MUNICIPAL COOPERATIVE POWER POOL, SPIEGEL & MCDIARMID |
| To: | US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19331A140 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8006110562 | |
| Download: ML19331A142 (13) | |
Text
<
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA BEFORE THE ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION Consumers Power Company
)
Docket No. 50-329A MEMORANDUM BY INTERVENOR MUNICIPALS AND COOPERATIVES ON CLAIMS BY CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY FOR WITIIIIOLDING PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS Consumers Power Company has submitted to the Presiding Examinor in camera a large number of documents on which it asserts claims of privilege.
These are mainly listed in two groups., A number of documents are listed under a general claim that they come within the purview of attorney-client privilege or that they constitute attorney work product.
It
- /
has not yet submitted a list of the documents.
However, except for a showing of who is shown to have received copies from the documents themselves, the list of documents submitted by Consumers Powcr apparently will not give sufficient information with respect to any of the withheld documents, showing charactericing circumstances necessary to determine whether any of the withheld documents qualify as privileged.
Not yet having the list or a showing of the characterizing circumstances
- /
It did submit a list on April 26, 1973, but this list was to have been supplemer.ted.
80 06130 fgg
m relating to each document sought to be withheld, the municipal-intervenors submit a memorandum at this time dealing generally with Consumers Power's claims and the applicable principles of law concerning privileged docuraents.
I PRINCIPLES OF LAW RELATING TO EDISON'S ASSERTIONS OF ATTORNEY-CLIENT OR ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT Attorney-client privilege is narrowly limited to purely attorney-client communications.
The purpose of the privilege is to promotc freedom of consultation between client and attorney, by insuring that the client may make frank, confidential revelations to his attorney without fear of a forced disclosure.
Hunt v. Blackburn, 128 U. S. 464, 470; Modern Woodmen of American v. Watkins, 132 F.2d 352 (CA 5);
United States v.
United shoe Machinery Corn., 89 F. Supp. 357, 358 (D. C. Mass.).
Likewise, the concept of attorney's work product is narrow in scope and is limited in application.
An attorney's work product encompasses the attorney's " impressions, observations and opinions" which he records "as the product of his investigation of a case in the actual preparation for trial on behalf of a client."
Zenith Radio Corn.
v.
Radio Corn, of Amer ica, 121 F.'Supp. 792, 795 (D. Del.).
The concept of work -
m product is to protect the attorney and assure a degree of privacy, free from unnecessary or'needicss interference from an opposing party or counsel, allowing him to assemble information, prepare legal theories and plan strategy in order to properly prepare his client's case, Hickman v.
Tavlor, 329 U. S. 495.
The work product concept is thus limited to this arca of litigation and work in t.* pending case.
Not all work done by an attorney falls within the work product protection.
Mutual knowledge of all relevant facts gathered by both parties is essential to proper litigation.
As stated by the Court in Hickman v. Tavlor, supra, at page 511:
l "We do not mean to say that all written materials obtained or prepared by an adversary to counsel with an eye toward litigation are necessarily free from discovery in all cases.
Where relevant and non privileged facts remain hidden in an attorney's files and where production of those facts is essential to the preparation of one's case, discovery may properly be had."
i It is basic that, since the work product concept l
as well as attorney-client privilege runs directly counter to the goal of full disclosure sought by the liberalized I
discovery rules in federal, as well as other, present day l l
t
w m
.~
litigation, United States v.
Vehicular Perking, 52 F. Supp.
751'(D. Del.), they are strictly construed in application in accordance with their narrow objects stated above.
United States v. United Shoc Machinerv Coro., suora, at page 358.
As stated in People's nank v. Brown, 112 Fcd. 652, 654 (CA 3):
. But it [the attorney-client privilege]
has been forceably and vehemently a'ssailed.
and the suppression of evidence which it offects can.be justified only when the limitations which rostrict the scope of its operations are assiduously heeded.
Therefore it is requisite that in every instance it shall be judicially determined whether the particular communication in questicibe really privileged,,and, in order that such primary determination may be advisedly made, it is indispensable that the court shall be apprised, through preliminary inquiry, of the characteriz-ing circumstances It follows from the execptional nature of the privilege that the party claiming a privilege has the burden of establishing its existence with respect to each communication.
Phclos Dodce Corporation v. Guerrero, 273 Fed. 415, 418 (CA 9).
There is no presumption of privilege.
People's Bank v. Brown, suora; Re Morrell's Estate, 277 N. Y. Supp.
262, 268.
Any privilege there may be cannot be blanketed in by general ssertions of privilege.
A privilege must be shown to exint by appr i.r. t c f i he
- . c i : 1 r1i i- '.,
.. i.a to cach individuril coctment, dnich imat ~oc so;ar..icly conc idc.r cd and separ::ccly fcund to ha pri / i.'.ct, i.
7.
ith Rudie.r*cc.
- v. nf (. 3 c en.m. o; 7,cr.4.cn, 121
. 9 ;u.. a. "' 9 2,
..h
>. M 'm' n,. v.rn.
79d, rent 1. : ' -
In final analycir., decerminatic-a*
to.huther a privilege c:
.ct, viith resp < ct to p:irtict -.r doc i.. n ts,
- c. :..
/ cid c:d by t.ho Coe r t n, ia.;I in tha quest. ions of !.a t F. o.-
siding IP:cminor,... -
. 9.<ic Oc.'.
- nstaat case by c 4
c.o.:rriya mu a, a.
,Ctciner v.
Unie-- 9 t alSz, 13.' i.X 931, 935 (CA S), after inope tion of each doce cut,.g ::c i P st<m ve biett n - 0.chirn,.. m a, upon furt.har prcc!..i na r.
inquiry b.'s i
the Proulding n e. ann nor, e.nd after disclocure uy F.dicon of the "charactorining eitcumotancen currounding occh document, Pennlo'n nnnk v. P try.in, nunrn; A cursory perunal of the lista of documents claime:1 by Consumers Power to be privileged as attorney-client con-fidential communications indicate, from the following princioics of law, that Edison should provide information chettin;i the J
characterizing circumstanccs as to each document preizuinary t-a ruling by the Presiding E:'aminer.
Such information should j
5-
i r.c,i ado e ;. :: t <
.t
..in.tcatJ.'li
.n
. t. r i. '/ w.',.. "
U.
(.: m r.< * ' t.
war;,1 miniy d.i:
i.
- .s i n t..
e.^,
r-F. o. I. r
. c.
I.,
oc cour,ti ! t..in i n, in l '. o our:.0 0.~
('i;.Uc. cry Gr 7 "5
.... l e n.-,
"I... -
i t '.13:. horatoeTore ni/ cloc.Ki b
')rof Ct.i on G r a l ', c.
O,7 the docu.v an t ; whetner it 1" part of a : ar:; e c3 O r c;- :a :..: c h a t...
produced; whether it 2.c cart ot. a scr:cs or cu.ar docusaan:r withbuld: and ;:he subJu t matters coveriore iich rice.r;> nte imd acries of documents.
- 7. l '_ s u..i. ;
- Co rn.. tion
- w i<i.an nro -
to interVOf to E G as well Tt:
thC i ;c a rir.',
COOrd O
.h i t.
thO A n t.C r -
venors nr.y co operl f f.repare a w....orandum of tb : r p.y:itica u.
to whether part.icular docum.:nte arc actur.lly I.c.i nir :cd c
+ /
if privilegcd whether the privilcgo uas waivt.d.
The noc.:
for a presentation of all the charactcrining circumnxancar. it emphasized by the folicwine principles relating to privile5c.
applicable to Concu..'ers Power's lists of documents:
1.
Documentc which are not writton by or to an attorney are not privilegcd as attorney-client confidential communications.
3 Wigmore en Evidence (3rd Ed.) Sec. 2292; tin i ;- ^d S t r. t o s
- v. United Shen t@.ch incre C o.-., G 9 I'. Supp. 357, 358 (D. Mass.).
- / We believe other parcios chould also r'.c.:.ve tbi.s indz "'.'icn
_so that they ray advi.;c che IIcaring Board.
s
.rit
.m Ly
- t c -
- t mm ey 2.
notedi =
.uents arc privilcc.id.
This is particularly true.:. to a cor-oroation's "houac com.cel".
Ae cttted in U.'-
..- e t. c ".
..rch i..
ccru., nir.r, at 1;acc 3 E.,, "..o i.onb tini MS sbon 2
a hign parcentage c.f 6. con:.T.unicr. ion: cc c -.rr tnce.
[hounc counne]! f all co t nide the privi..Lo.;c.
.;ur. c.icr.:
ec. ununication I; pre. rco 3.
wh.tre..
no pri.1.1_ctc even ti:c. jh arit t :.
,1un;i ne c: pu rpo..it, Om re i.e councel or preci.nl :
' r.
. c._. e t m.
by or at;dren:ed to boa c'
eL.trd in Zenith P'dic.'.
for hic vicua.
,c.
o r.. rica, 121
. s,. >p. 792, 791 (D. Del.), c c- -'/.n i c ~. t ! ' /-
not priv:.ict. sed v: hic h rc "colely, o r e.t a., 1. n;. '.,',., n r advice."
[Emphasin suoplied]
in 4.
Conwunications by or to a percon 4m serves a dual capacite a:: bucinosa e::ccutive and hou: c counsel Un:ted Stat.=
- i c ;l : r P..r.iv.c.
are particul:.rli' suc,sei t, 52 P. Supp. 751, 7.;?-4 (D. Del.).
Sucit cc.iacanicationc ~.urt e
in r..tur scrutinized to determine '.hether tacy are "bua:.ncar" and, th re l ore, nct.oriv;'egcd, Tr.. :.. c >.. c. ' -reccic Rculr v' C n," r..
'r_,
10 I'.
A. D. 4.". 0, A43 (B.
D.
I 1.1. ).
ao m
e
1 s
5.
i;r.t.ill docu.nr.n t s in the ;.o.-
mit. c. ~ nh.
"'. e od.
!.at at.torney for a party are pr.ivilu;cel.
lim " i t o W.. cir. r c :.
of 'ha
- .c.rrv i
n'-iv i i cc a is v4 ' h roca'ect to t b.. P r ?.5 ' c-
-icn
.~r.
v, 1:r '.."
. n '-v n ] Cr.n i.31:n' 27 C. J.
S.,
Sectic7 7; Hen'c
'r.
Tc a !!ne.a Cv. 87 U. W.
2d., 923, 926; 7-nith E-6.i" Co m.
- v. TMo 9 v.
P:velc,
Corporn :- i r.n o r-An.,r.i.,, 21 F. C u "e %s 792, 7 9 5 ;. i.c.::
7.
329 U. S. 495 (c "@.i -in r uppli ta).
privilege could c:.::...t 'ti th r ':Occ:
6.
Even i; ::
io a particular doc.r.pnt, the privilege ta ty he waived by revealing clccwhere in any foru, the samt. Information or an attorno"'s oninion as is containcd in the cc.munication er doeuraent claimed to be privilegcd, D.m!! o Ce m. c ?_. n:-i c a L._
page 414. Disclocure of a Rauland Corocration,, ^ u a r n_,
at privileged document by permitting itc in pection *.iaives the privilege, Sc!wta r t - ". T r n'? n l 1,_e_rs In c u r n?- Cc
- m n'?, 17 2.R.L.
320 (S.D.N.Y.); Unireci__".
ite n v. Ohihiny, 112 '. Supp. 734, 741 (S.
D. Calif.).
V;hore disclo ure of the 3.nform'tici in m: cle,
frank revelatic.
',2y :n:-
the puroose of the privilege to cncouraca client without fear of disclosure cenecc.
T1a casic litir.3:iar Cm--
t'. :
goal of complete discovery should then be sati:...~ieG.
veil of cecrecy in 1:.f ted by dicciosure, it cannot be i c'.. u r ?
7-*.
8-
_. _. ~
+
United States v.
Shiblev, suora.
As stated in Re Anenei.it.g Gas & Electric Co.,
59 F. Supp. 743, 744-5-(S.D.N.Y.),."Once the confidential matter is voluntarily disclosed to the public, it is no longer a secret and the privilogo which might be claimed t.
- /
under the statuto disappears."
7.
Disclosure of one of a serion of communications which together countitute an integrated trannaction necescarily l
waiven the privilege au to the remaining documents in that serics.
Consumern Powcr "cannot open the door to part of the facts and close it as to the remaindcr".
Willard C.
Beach Air Brush Co.
- v. General Motors corn., 118 F. Supp. 242, 247.
(D. N. J.).
CONCLUSION The above cases show that doctrines of privilege are limited and must be specifically cupported in light of the circumstances both to affirmatively demonctrate the existence a
of a privilege and to demonstrate the abcence of waiver.
- Ilonce, d
Consumers Power has failed to do this, the documents should be r
- /
For these purpones one need not determine whether a waivor can result, as Consumers Power claims, from revelation under prctest, pursuant.to court ordor.
l.-
s
~,
turned over to the parties.
At the least, the company nhould have to fully justify its claim.
Respectfully submitted, Robert A. Jablon One of the attorneys for Traverse City, Coldwater, Holland, Grand llaven and Zeeland, Michigan, the Michigan Municipal Electric Ansociation, Wolverinc Electric Cooperative, and Northern Michigcn Electric Cocportit.ivo September 19, 1973 Law Officcc:
Spiegel & McDiarmid 2600 Virginia Avenue, N. W.
Washington, D.
C.
20037
/
-s s
Al'l
- l DAY l T DISTRICT Ol' COLUMBIA, SS:
deposen Robert A.Jablon, being first duly cworn, is one of the attorncyn for the Citics of and nays that he Trav. rne CJ ty, Coldwater, IIolland, Grand llaven and %ccland, thi Michii. pin Municipal F.loctric Ancociation,
- Michigan, and Northern Michigan Eleetr.ic Wolverine I:liet.ric Cooperative, as such he hac signcd the forcroing Coope ra l. ive and t ha t-Intervcnor Mun. cipain and Coopernt.i rr. on Ca t:r. -
i Memorandum by by Consumara Power Company for Wit.hholding Production of Docu: -r.:n that he is authorized so to for and on behalf of said partics; i h the
- t. hat he hac rend said Men.orandum and in familiar w t do; the mattern and things thcroin cet contrutn thereof; and that to the best of hic kno..' ledge, fort h are true and correct information or belief.
Robert A. Jablon Subccr@cd and nuorn to thin 19th day of before no Septemb.r, 1973.
IJotary Public sopromber 30, 1974 My commisci.on c.':pires :
-~
L IN I 'I'l:i) :PlWl'M:: t il* AMK! li'A ItMI'UleM TitM
' ATOMIC ENEl(GY COMM I::::lo!J In the Matter of
)
)
Docket No. 50-329A Consumers Power Company
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that. the Memcecmdum by Intervonor Municipals and Cooperativos on Claims by Consumers Power Comp;ny fc' Withholding Production of Documente in the hbove-captiom c; natter was. served'upon the following by deposit in the Uni tcd States mail, firnt clnss or air mail, thin 19th day of September, 1973.
Alan Rouenthal, Eng., Chairman Mr. Franh 'c;.
Ra r c,,
C',: i. d Atomic Safety and Licensing Public -Prococdinen Brand.
Board Panel Office of the Secretary U.
S. Atomic Energy Commission U.
S. Atomic Energy Comr.iissicn 1717 11 Street, N. W.
1717 H Strect, N. W.
Washington, D.
C.
20545 Washington, D. C.
20545 Abraham Braitman, Chief Atomic Safety and Licensing Of fice of Antitrust and Board Panel Indemnity U.
S. Atomic Energy Cor ni rrion -
U.
S. Atomic Energy Commission 1717 II S t reet,
N. W.
1717 11 Street, N. W.
Washington, D. C.
20545 Washington, D.
C.
20545 Ilarold P.
Graves, Esq.
Itobert J. Ve rdisco, Esq.
Vice Prcoident and General Counr Counsel for AEC Regulatory Consumers Power Company Staff 212 West Michigan Avenue U. S. Atomic Encrgy Commission Jackson, Michigan-49201 1717 11 Strect,_N. W.
Washington, D. C.
20545 Wallaco E.
Brand, Esq.
Antitrust Public Counsel Jerome Garfinkel, Esq., Chairman Departnent of Juntice Atomic Safety and Licensing Board P.
O. Box 7513 U.
S. Atomic Energy Commission Washington, D.
C.
20044 1717 II Street, N. W.
Washington, D.
C.
20545
s Joseph Rutberg, Esq.
Joseph J. Saundern, 1::.q.
U. S. Atomic Energy Commission Antitrust Divinion 7920 Norfolk Avenue Department of Justice Bothcada, Maryland P. O. Box 7513 Washington, D. C.
20044 Ilugh K. Clark, Esq.
P. O. Box 127 A Honorable Frank Kcily Kent' adyville, Maryland Attorney General State of Michigan William T. Clabault, Ecq.
Lansing, Michigan 49813 David A.
Leckie, Esq.
Department of Justico Dr. J. Vcnn Leeds, Jr.
Anti trust Di.vinion P. O. Box 941
- P. O. nox 7513 Houston, Texas 77001 Wachingt on, D.
C.
20044 William W.
Ross, Esq.
Mr. James 13. Palahec Wald, Harkrador and Ross Gencrtil Attorney 1320 - 19th Strect, N.W.
Concumers Power Cor..pany Washington, D. C.
112 West Michigan Avenue Jachcon, Michigan 49201 Robert A. Jablon Law Officen:
Spieqcl & McDiarmid 2600 Virginia Avenue, N. W.
Washington, D. C.
20037 i
1 1
l m.
....m m.
.