ML19350E273

Answer Opposing Util 810526 Motion to Compel Responses to Util First Set of Interrogatories to Intervenors Referred to as Porter County Chapter Intervenors.Answers Are by Persons & Organizations Named or Agents.Related Correspondence

ML19350E273
Person / Time
Site:	Bailly
Issue date:	06/10/1981
From:	Vollen R PORTER COUNTY CHAPTER INTERVENORS, VOLLEN, R.J. & WHICHER, J.M.
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
Shared Package
ML19350E274	List: ML19350E273 ML19350E275 ML19350E276
References
NUDOCS 8106170226
Download: ML19350E273 (3)

Text

1

~ ~ - ~ ~ ~~- ~~~

g l0[2'M

/'* '

IEJJED C0KEESPONDENC': p

~

N I

UNITED STATES ( F AMERICA e

&g #

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION O fg C,

BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOAR In the Matter of ) g

)

NORTHERN INDIANA PUBLIC ) Docket No. 50-36 SERVICE COMPANY (Construction "t I (Bailly Generating

)

Extension) /N '

) ,S Station, Nuclear-1) ) d /

) b

\f

<9 h $'[ f l

ANSWER OF PORTER COUNTY CHAPTER INTERVENORS NIPSCO'S " MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO ITS FI

+

,yy

//)

SET OF INTERROGATORIES TO THE INTERVENORS e ,

'i ' ~ ~

FREQUENTLY DENOMINATED ' PORTER COUNTY CHAPTER INTERVENO Porter County Chapter of the Izaak Walton League of America, Inc.;

Concerned Citizens Against Bailly Nuclear S tee; Businessmen for the Public Interest, Inc.; James E. Newman and Mildred Warner ("PCCI"),

by their attorneys, hereby answer NIPSCO's " Motion to Compel Responses to Its First Set of Interrogatories to the latervenors Frequently Denominated ' Porter County Chapter Intervenors '" ("NIPSCO Motion")

filed on May 26, 1981. NIPSCO's Motion should be denied.

l NIPSCO admits that its First Set of Interrogatories to Porter I) Sol County Chapter Intervenors was misdirected.*/ (NIPSCO Motion at j/

/f

p. 1). Notwithstanding that PCCI waived the obj ection in order A>D to avoid unnecessary litigation over discovery issues , NIPSCO Lob 774 8^'

DE/e/E:

! */

NIPSCO further acknowledged its technical deficiency by IlE G F:/e5 l " refiling" its Second Set of Interrogatories to correct the j misdirection of the original version of the Second Set. Having i sought unsuccessfully to obtain NIPSCO's counsel's agreement f that no response to the misdirected original Second Set was required, PCCI objected to them. NIPSCO has now used the occasion of that well-founded objection - not to seek an order overruling the obj ection and compelling an anwer - but to l

make a gratuitous and unfounded attack upon counsel for PCCI.

In fact, nothing which counsel for PCCI said or did could l reasonably be believed by counsel for NIPSCO to provide any pa-ticular reason why the extension to June 1, 1981 for responses j to the original Second Set was required. The unwarranted attack G by NIPSCO will have the effect of precluding future efforts at informal cooperation among counsel.

8]06170 xMo

has filed the instant motion. It appears that NIPSCO has two complaints: (1) that the answers are not actually those of the parties (Motion at p. 2) , and (2) that an agent may not sign interrogatory answerF6s behalf _ofrar[ individual party (Motion at

~

p. 4).

As to the first complaint, counsel for PCCI attempted to resolve any ambiguity in the Answers by offering to counsel for NIPSCO to submit a pleading making clear that the answers were indeed those of the parties, and not those of their attorneys and agent. The offer was refused. We did intend the answers to be, and they are, those of the organizations and individuals named.

To the extent that the language fails to make that clear and leaves some other impression, we apologize for any inconvenience our lack of clarity may have caused. NIPSCO's firs t ground of obj ection is moot.

As to the second ground, NIPSCO has offered no authority for its conclusion that answers to interrogatories of an individual i party may not be executed by an agent for that party. The author-ities set ~sorth in ihe Motion (p. 4) go only to the position that l

l an attorney's answer can not suffice. They do not bar a party from answering interrogatories by an agent, authorized to do so.*/

-*/ To tMxt'ent-that=NIPSCO also obj ects on the ground that the organizations and individuals encompassed within "PCCI" filed joint answers, the obj ection is equally groundless. Joint answers clearly are within the contem-plation of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The requirement that the answers be set forth " separately" is to prevent a party from filing one answer to several interrogatories, not to prevent the filing of joint answers by several parties. 4A Moore's Fed. Prac. 133.25(1]

(2d ed. 1981).

l

e  : -

The answers here were by an agent so authorized.

NIPSCO ? s Motion to Compel should be denied.

DATED: June 10, 1981 Respectfully submitted, Robert J. Vollen Jane !!. Whicher by:

Robert J. Vollen Attorneys for Porter County Chapter Intervenors Robert J. Vollen '

Jane M. Whicher c/o BPI 109 North Dearborn Suite 1300 Chicago, Illinois 60602 (312) 641-5570 l

l e7 p - - .-w -%yum- --egim yyew-e.m----wer-y +3, --e- - a- p.+-->7--w- +%www gr.pw.w+e ,e-w.