ML19352B265
| ML19352B265 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000142 |
| Issue date: | 06/19/1981 |
| From: | Cormier W CALIFORNIA, UNIV. OF, LOS ANGELES, CA |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8107010366 | |
| Download: ML19352B265 (4) | |
Text
_________
Tdf
!jif hEh y
3 l
7.
r.
i.
3
- s
.s
- li i
k .\\~.
1b UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
"$Tm.,3c-. M* /l' Yi' I
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 2l
\\\\ ~
/
BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOA 4
In the Matter of
)
I
)
Docket No. 50-142 3
THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY
) (Proposed Renewal of Facility OF CALIFORNIA
)
License Number R-71) j 6l
)
l (UCLA Research Reactor)
)
June 19, 1981 7
)
- , C..:,,
p s.
4.,
8 3
T 9
REQUEST FOR CHANGE IN DISCOVERY SCHEDQ_'
9 g 1981 P t-2 Yf 11 I.
THE REQUEST Q) 12 M
131 In accordance with the May 29, 1981 Order of the Atomic I
14 Safety and Licensing Board (Board), Applicent, THE REGENTS OF THE, i
15 UNIVERSITY.OF CALIFORNIA, requests that the Board suspend the 16 June 30th.date that parties are to respond to follow-up questions,.
17 as set by the Board in its March 20, 1981 Order, pending 18 disposition of the motions to compel further answers on the i
19 underlying questions that have been submitted by Applicant and 20 Intervenor (Committee to Bridge the Gap) and that the Board 1
21' l
agree to issue a revised schedule as part of the Board's 22 impending rulings on the motions to compel.
_ gg3 23!
3 l
i di 24' II.
DISCUSSION 25 li Il i
26:1 Both Intervenor and App]icant have filed motions to i
i 27 compel further written answers respecting the interrogatories 28 submitted by each on April 20, 1981.
In addition, Applicant i
i 810701.03 W 9
N q
t i
l. has requested a protective order pertaining to those questions, 2hwhichrequestisstillpending.
The Board stated in its May 29, t
3 1981 order that it would be necessary to adjust the discovery i
4' schedule in the event a dispute over answers to interrogatories 5
arose.
Such a dispute has arisen and, as a practical matt'r, l'
6 the parties will have great difficulty proceeding with follow-up 7
questions and responses while disputes over the underlying 8
questions remain unresolved.
9 10 Applicant notes that Intervenor in its June 12, 1981 Il Motion to Compel has also requested that the discovery schedule 12 be altered and cites the Board's May 29, 1981 Order to the effect, i
that such a request would be granted.
Intervenor has submitted {
13 l
14 a " third set" of follow-up questions to Applicant.
Applicant would expect, andassumesthatIntervenorwouldreadilyagreeto,l 15' 16 that Intervenor would appropriately modify that set of questions I7 to conform to the Board's rulings on Applicant's protective 18 order request.
Moreover, Applicant has relied on the Board's 19 statement in its May 29, 1981 Order and has not submitted its 20 follow-up questions to Intervenor pending resolution of Applicant's 21 motion to compel further answers to its first set questions to 22 Intervenor and would want to ask such follow-up questions once 23I Applicant receives what the Board determines to be responsive 24 answers to Applicant's first set questions.
25 Intervenor and Applicant each have until June 29, 1981 27 to serve a response to the motion to compel of the other.
In
[
additicn, Applicant has until June 30, 1981 to respond to r
i l
,-m
t I
e.
\\
i i
Intervenor's May 26,.1981 Request for Production of Certain j
1 1
i 2
Documents.
The original discovery schedule set by the Board i
'I would have had Applicant respond to Intervenor's follow-up 3l 4l, questions by June 30, 1981.
Applicant is unable to respond by 5
that date due to the extremely large number of follow-up 6
questions that have been asked by Intervenor but, in any case, 7
has assumed on the basis of the Board's May 29 statement and the pending nature of the motions to compel and the protective order,1 8
i 9,
which will relate to many of Applicant's follow-up responses, 10 that the Board is prepared to suspend the time for Applicant to 11 respond to these questions pending the establishment of a new 12
- schedule, 13 14 Applicant proposes that a revised schedule be issued as 15 part of the Board's ruling on the motions to compel and the 16 protective order request and 17l 18
- that it provide for twenty.(20) days for a party to 19 respond to a Board ruling, if there is one, directing that party {
l' 20 to provide further written answers to the April 20 questions; 21 22
- that it provide for an additional twenty (20) days for.
I 23 a party to submit follow-up questions (or revise questions t
i 24 ' already submitted to conform to the Board's order) to the other I
25!' party's answers and, if directed, further answers; and 26 27
- that it provide a further additional twenty (20) days l l
28 ' for a party to respond to the follow-up questions.
3 l
l
(;
p I
i l
III.
CONCLUSION j
I 2
3 Applicant respectfully requests that the Board suspend l
l forthwith the remainder of the existing discovery schedule with 4
l
.5 the intent of issuing a new schedule so that Applicant will know l with certainty that it c.an await the Board's ruling on Applicant's!
0 7
protective order request before it is required to respond to 8
Intervenor's follow-up questions.
9 10 Dated:
June 19, 1981 11 I
DONALD L. REIDHAAR ENN R. WOODS 13 CHRISTINE HELWICK 14 15,.
By
/ 3 William H.
Cormier 16 UCLA Representative for 171 THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25l 26i I
27 28 4
-