ML19344A222

Memorandum in Support of Util Objection to Intervenors 761201 Requests That Drafts of Testimony & Affidavit Be Produced for Insp.Aslb Should Deny Intervenor Motion. Certificate of Svc Encl

ML19344A222
Person / Time
Site:	Midland
Issue date:	12/14/1976
From:	Bartelman C, Renfrow R, Rosso D CONSUMERS ENERGY CO. (FORMERLY CONSUMERS POWER CO.)
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
NUDOCS 8008060576
Download: ML19344A222 (3)

Text

_ .

q .

^

N *

, - UNITED STATES CP AMERICA -

- NJCLEAR REGULATCRI CGEISSION f

HEFORE THE ATCMIC SAFETT AND LICumuu 3 CARD In the Matter of. )

')

CONSUMERS POWER CCMPANY )

Docket Nos. 50-329

) 50-330 (Midland Plant, Ifnits 1 and 2) . ).

MEMCRANDUM IN SUPPORT OF CONSUMERS PCMER CCMPANY'S OBJECTION TO THE PRONICTION CF DCCUMEFIS

~ '

Cn December l, 1976, the Intervenors in the above-referenced i

l proceeding requested that drafts of the testi=cny and affidavit submitted l by Joseph G. Temple, Jr. 'in the above-referenced proceeding be produced for their inspection Lud copying by te Dow Chemical Company. Consuners power Company (Licensee) has objected to the production of these docu=ents on the 1

ground that they are the work product of counsel.' Mis memorandum will set i

, forth the legal basis for the objection.

2hese drafts were identified in letters between counsel for Licensee and counsel for The Dow Chemical Co=pany dated October 6, 22, and 29 ne letters were predaced for the Interrenors. It is clear from these cover letters that the documents were prepared by counsel for the . respective parties.

In Hielcnan v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495 (1947), the United states supreme Court ruled that the work product of counsel was privileged and as such did not have to be produced pursuant to a discovery request. Ihat court explained tha.t work product was reflected in " interviews, statements, memoranda, correspon-dence, briefs, mental impressions, personal beliefs and countless other

'tamsible and intangible ways". 'Id. at 511. Thus, it is clear that the drafts in question are work product of counsel.

w- .

.g m__

. - J 23 caly disputa'amon6 tha partica is whsth:r tha disclosure of the documents prepared by an attorney for one party and disclosed to at- '

torneys representing other' interested individuals will remove the '4=mity of the documents from discovery. Case law clearly provides that such disclosures do not prevent a valid claim of the work product' privilege.

For-example, in Stanley Works v. Haeger potteries, Inc., 35 F.R.D. 551 (N.D. Ill.,1964), the plaintiff objected to interrogatories requesting identification of all correspondence and documents relating to the suit betweeht Arthur D. Little, Inc.-and plaintiff. Little was plaintiff's ~#

partner in a joint licensing program for the patent in ' suit.

s . De court held that Little's "close relationship to pimintiff and the suit at bar must be recognized" even thou6h Little was not a party. 35 F.R.D. at 554, me court added: "*dhere attorneys having a mutual interest in litigation exchange their work product, it remains protected by a qualified privilege." 35 F.R.D.

at 555 Se court also noted ,that Little was " equally concerned with the outec=e" of the suit, so th.At any em-mications made "with an eye towards -

possible litigation" between plaintiff's counsel and Little need only be identified,and not produced.- 35 F.R.D. at 555. Accord: Stix Products, Inc.

v. United Merchants & Mfra. , Inc. , 47 F.R.D. 334 (S.D.N.Y.1969); Trans=irra Products Corp. v. Monsanto Chemical Co., 26 F.R.D. 572 (S.D.N.Y 1960);

Lichter v. Mellon-Stuart Co., 24 F.R.D. 334 (S.D.N.Y.1959). Berefore,

( -

Licensee respectfully. requests that this Board deny Interrenor's motion to produce the' drafts in question.

Respectfully submitted,

- 3,, -

/. '?'

f ., /

. ,f , */h ,

R.' Rex 'Renfrow"III David J. Rosso/

Caryl A. Bart.1 nan K

3: y . :,. Attorneys for Consumers

, 7.. Power &=an w 4 .e

• g g

, -, 4 s

. ... : .L c

• e f., .

UNITED STATES UF* AMERICA g

,,c, ,

NUCLEAR REGULATORY CCtMISCION vine 9.

f.

DEC141s7s > ,

HEFORE TEE ATCMIC SAFETT AND LICENSIDG BCARD ep=, .,, r, 3,,, ,,,

9 a .,.. . : m .

s u.

In the Matter of ) 4 s !g

)

CCNSUMERS PJ4ER CCGANI ) ..

Docket Nos. 50-329

) 50-330 (Midland Elant, Units 1 and 2) ) ,

,. . J 't. ~ %

,, "$ : ' CERTFICATE OF SERVICE

, . . , .a . ..

I hereby[ certify that' copies. of the attached "Me=orandum In Support

~

., :c s. -

of Consumers Power Compks Cbjection. Tb the Production of Docu=ents" dated ,,.

4, .. .

. m. -

Dece5ber 2,'1976.iktS[ab' eve-captioned proceeding, have been served on the -

.:.,;.G. 1: .

following by hand- delivery this 2nd day of December,1976:

Da:iiel M. Head, Esq., Chair =an Dr. E=neth A. Inebke, Esq.

Atomic Safety and-Licensing Atomic Safety'and Licensing Bocrd Panel .

Board Panel U.S. Relear Regulatory Co= mission _ U.S. R elear Regulatory C d ssion Washington, D.C. ,.205,55 . W W "ston, D.C. 20555

. ..L : , -x Dr..J.VennLeeds[:Esq.-. '

Myron M. Cherry, Esq.

Atomic Safety and Licensing .I'.IEM Plaza '

Bcard Panel ' Chicago, Ininois 60611 10807 Atwell Houston, Texas 77096 Lawrence Brenner, Esq.

mclear Regulatory C d ssica

. Washington, D.C. 20555 Sie following have been served by deposit in the United States nail, first-class,.this Rnd day of December 1976:

itomic Safety and Licensing Docketing and Service Section Board Panel .. Office of the Secretary U.S. Relear Regula' tory Cocimission U.S. R elear Regulatory Co= mission 17ashington, D.C.. j 20555

'E Washington, D.C. 20555 Atomic Safety and Licensing D h

Appeal Doard Panel )D )0 \ U'u a o e Ju o Juu. u .

U.S. Nuclear Regulatoz/ Co==ission ,a Washington, D.C.. 20555

/ m.q/ .}

./ /- '

"- ~'

.' i. [/ [ g

^

~ _ l" l :.

llR.' Rex Rentxc q lII

. :~ .

Counsel for Consu=ers Power Company e -:. -

Isham, Lincoln & Beale . . .

One First National Plaza: . # ,

gb- 327 Chicago, I m "nis, 60603- .

1. V

,. . :., ,