ML20005B484

Responds to Applicant Request for Change in Discovery Schedule.Request to Submit Followup Questions to 810520 Answers to First Set of Interrogatories Should Be Denied. Applicant Failed to Meet 810610 Svc Deadline

ML20005B484
Person / Time
Site:	05000142
Issue date:	06/30/1981
From:	Pollock M COMMITTEE TO BRIDGE THE GAP
To:	Bowers E Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
NUDOCS 8107080283
Download: ML20005B484 (2)

Text

.

~

the nuclear law center \

1724 NCAN LA DREA AWNUE e LO) ANGELES CAUFOlt% - m

• 213/851-9201 s -

s& M&

?t.e 30,1991 Elisabeth S. Souers, Esq., ChairM.n Y '-  %

1981 k" t_

Adninistrative Judge A JUL 0 t ff Atonic Safety and Licensing Soard C p /sf31 DOCKrgo Di U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Connissieb u.s.gmsA ' ey, )

./y$

Washington, D.C. 20555 q g ,

"'he Regents of the University of Califoria ro hvs' - '

kU (UCIA Research Reactor)

Docket No. 50-142 O e (hotosed Reneual cf Facility License) -J RE: RESFCNSE TO AFFLICANT'S "REQUIST FCR CFANCE IN DISCOVERY SCEEDUlE" Eear Judge Ecders:

Earlier today I received a phone call fren your secretary inforning ne that the discovery schedule was being nodified and that an C-der detailind the nodifications would shortly be sent to parties.

A couple of hours later I received in the nail Applicant's

" Request for Change in Discovery Schedule" with a note from Er. Cornier apclegining f or the delay iy service caused by Appliemat not having the correct acdress for me. As there is one iten in the request which my client opposes, I had a nessage left with Es. Taylor in j ,ur office later today indictting that Intervencr uculd be nailing a response to Applicant's request. What follows is said response.

Intervenor has no objection to the extension Applicant has requested regarding pronulgation and service of Applicant's answers to Intervenor's June 10 interrogatcries. Nor does Intervenor have objection to the proposed time for responses and follow-up questions en compelled further answers, if such are ordered, indicated en page 3 of Applicant's request (essentially tu;nty day periods). Intervenor does request the 3oard clarify, if it approves Applicant's request, whether that is twenty days fren date of service with or without the five days Md.ed for service by nail in 10 CFR 2.710.

Intervenor dces object to Applicant's request tho , it be pernitted to serve felleu-up cuestions to answers to its 1st set of interrocateries after failine to nect the deailine fer snid service. It is r21sc 2tle for Applicant to request that it be able to sutnit fc11cu-up questions to

]/' Fr. Zay reports that he did not receive a copy; Er. Hirsch reports that an envelope with the Request was found late one night last i eek on a ledge outside the effice buildirg in which he ucrks. It was found by senecne who ucrks in the same building; fortunately; but, if hand-delivered, uas not done in the proper manner.

O'

"~8107080283 810630 ,

PDR ADOCK 05000142

.g PDR [9l{o

Judge 3cwers pane 2 6h0/n any further ansuers to these interroratories compelled by 3e trn response to its F.otion to Compel. Intervenor feels it is unreasonable 1or Applicant to request, censidarably af ter the deacline has passed, that it te atie to submit its second set of interregatories as to answers Intervenor provided on l'ay 20. The deadline for such second set interrogatories was June los Applicant's request fer delay is censiderably af ter the fact. Interverer notes that Applicant has nade a Eotion to Compel further answers as to only fou specific interro6atoriest even were the F.otion granted, Applicant should only have the right to follow-up questions to the further answers. Follou-up interrogatories as to the 1st set interrogatories were due considerably before Applicant requested the change in discovery schedule.

As AT plicant's request for discovery schedule change does not address sunrary disposition, Intervenor assuncs that the stipulated agreement and i Soard Order thereto, twice reaffirmed. remains in place. To wit that sunrary disposition notions will be filed " thirty days after answers are submitted to the seccr.d round of questions" and 45-65 days before the 2.752 pre-hearing conference, depending upon whether a party files in support of a summary disposition notion. (February 5 pra-hearing conference, TR 487-883 orderM in place by Soard Order of Farch 20, reaffirmed in Orders of April 30 and June 9.} The only alteration is the date of June 30, which would be postponed up round of until thirty (days questions i.e. after answers are submitted to the final _ follow-the follow-u answers, should such answers te ordered)p questions to conpelled further Intervenor has a strong interest in expediting these proceedings and inquires whether procedures such as phone conference calls cculd be instituted to resolve scheduling and other procedural natters where tine pressures force prompt decisions. 3ecause of the June 30 deadline for Applicant's answers to Intervenor's June 10 interrogatories, 3 card was forced to rule c: at least parts of Applicant's request for alteration in discoverg schedule before Intervencr had a chance to respend to Applicant's request If the Order of which your secretary noticed me today by phone goes beyond the requests made by Applicant and responded to herein, Intervencr respectfully requests that it be given an opportunity to respond thereto.

Respectfu ly submitted, O

Fork Yollock Ittorney for Intervenor cci service list. COMMITTEE TO 3 RIDGE THE cap 2/ Intervencr notes that even were Applicant's response properly served, the tine period for Intervenor's response would not have expired prior to the June 30 deadline by when Applicant needed at least a partial answer.

-_ -- . _ _