ML19331A353

Objection to Bechtel Corp & Bechtel Co First Set of Interrogatories to CPC & Motion for Protective Order. Response to Interrogatories Would Cause Undue Annoyance & Expense, & Be Burdensome & Oppressive & Repetitious

ML19331A353
Person / Time
Site:	Midland
Issue date:	01/15/1975
From:	Heiden T, Hutchinson F CONSUMERS ENERGY CO. (FORMERLY CONSUMERS POWER CO.), VARNUM, RIDDERING, SCHMIDT & HOWLETT (FORMERLY VARNUM
To:	U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
Shared Package
ML19331A348	List: ML19331A346 ML19331A353
References
NUDOCS 8007160921
Download: ML19331A353 (2)

Text

,.

1

'lITl:D STAYi::i OF A!!URU*A ~ ';l

• g n: T:11: :. . "n tcT Cctn:T ^" 'In t c: r".*:n cl.T::3 A3('

FOn Tl!U WE::TEI'll DI.':T!GCT OF IIICi!IGAN > 0 2 , : 2 7 ~ ~. '.,

SOUTI!CTd! DIVISIOI! / t., s'-' -

't 7: JES 3 '"-

c::

CONavanns POwun COrlPArY, )  % ..,

a Michigan corporation, )

)

%. ' .J/

c: s ; . <

Plaintiff, )

) File No. K-74-323-CA8 v )

) CDJECTION TO ECC!IT*:L COMnUSTION ENGItJMMRING, INC., ) COr,PORATION AllD DECIITEL a Delaware corporation; ) CCMPA:2Y'S FIRST SET OF DECI!TUL CORPORATIO;;, a ) IMTCnROGATORICG TO Delaucro corporation; ) PLAINTII'F CO::SU".' RS 13ECflTU1 CO::PA:1Y , a partnership; ) POI.'En CO':PNJY AMD f *0 TION INGEROOLL-RA:iD COMPA!!Y, a Mcw ) FOR PnCTCCTI'/C CRDDR Jcracy corporation; and )

WOLVERIN1: TUDE DIVISICN OF )

UNIVERSAL OIL PRODUCTS COMPlJiY, )

a Delawarc corporation, )

)

De fendan ts . )

)

NOW COMES Plaintiff Consuncrs Power Company by its attor-neys Varnum, Riddaring, Wiercngo & Christensen and, pursuant to the provisions of Mu.1.cs of 33 (a) and 26 (c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, objects to Bechtel Corporation and ncchtel Company's First Sct of Interrogatories to Plaintiff Consumers Power Company in that to answer said Interrogatories would cause Plaintiff unduc annoyance and expense, and be burdensome and opprossive, and Plain-tiff rcquests that this Court enter a Protective Order in connection thorowith, all for the following reasons:

1. The Interrogatories total almost five thousand (5,000) questions on 253 pages of legal size paper;

2. Many of the Interrogatorics are repetitious;

3. Many of the Interrogatories ask for irrelevant and immater-ial information; 8007160 MT/.

5. The Interrogatories ask for mental impressions of Plain-tiff's employcca, agents and consultants; ask for. legal conclusions; ask for privileged communications betwoon Plaintiff's employees,

- agents and consul.tants and its attornr:ys; and ash for the work pred-uct of Plaintiff's attorneys;

6. The Interrogatorics are so framed and intermingled as to make separate and individual objections impracticabic; for the Court to consider individual objections to individual Interrogaccrics would involve great domands on the Court's tir.ic;

7. For Plaa.ntif f to prcparc answers to these Interrogatorics would require undue timo and expense, creato large quantitics of repetitious material, disclose privileged con :unications betwoon attorney and client, and make public the work product of Plaintiff' r attorneys.

This Objection and Motion is based upon the files and s records in this case. ,

VARNUM, RIDDERING, WIERENGO &

CllRI 'TENSON

]Y, /

I^~""" b, f '

l ?

By .s Nw P.~iilliT:Tllutcliinson t j And

(~jf' '

d? f/.l-

' #i."'

/

W Thomas J. liciden Attorneys for Plaintiff Business Addressi' 666 Old Kent Building Grand 1:apids , MI 49502 Dated: January 15, 1975. Tel: (616) 459-4186