ML20031G011
| ML20031G011 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Byron  |
| Issue date: | 10/05/1981 |
| From: | Cherry M CHERRY, M.M./CHERRY, FLYNN & KANTER, LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF ROCKFORD, IL |
| To: | Mark Miller Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20031F993 | List: |
| References | |
| ISSUANCESOL, NUDOCS 8110200639 | |
| Download: ML20031G011 (5) | |
Text
.
N,4 r.
4 tt.. orrects C H E R R Y & F LY N N ONCSGM PLAZ A C ulCAG O, ILLINOIS 60 611 4312) 5 6 5-1877 October 5, 1981 Marshall E. Miller, ' xI., Chairman Atomic Safety and Lt..ensing %ud Panel U. S. Nuclear Regulatory C Mion Washington, D. C.
20555 Re: '1he Maomr of Ccmnonwealth Edison Company (Byron Station, Units 1 and 2) Docket Nos. SIN 50-454-OL and SIN 50-455-OL
Dear Chairman Miller:
I have been engaged in litigation in Kendall County, Illinois for scme 12 weeks und have been out of my office. During this past week I have been engaged in Court supervised settlment conversations with a multitude of parties from around the Country. In addition, one of my partners has been unreachable on vacation and my third partner has bee.. out of the office with a critically nl child for the better part of two weeks.
It was in the context of these circunstances that I received a telephone call late Thursday afternoon from Mr. Mirphy of Isham, Lincoln & Beale asking me if I could participate in a conference call the next day. I told Mr. Mirphy that I could not, but that I would check with him the follouing morning. I was not in my office for the better part of Friday, engaged in these critical other matters (and attenpting to assist n? partner whose child is ill), when apparently the DC operator or Mr. FLirphy's sec etary telephoned my secretary and told her there was a conference call on the Midland case. My secretary luached me and told me there was a conference call concerning Midland, and since I had no knowled'ge and notice of that I asked my secretary to inform people that I was vnavailable but that the call should be rescheduled to a time when I couM participate.- Shortly thereafter events overtcok me and my secre'.ary called Ishar.1, Lincoln and Beale and said that while I would lee to participate in any conference call, I was unable to do so that day.
It now appears that either the NBC's switchhmrti of Mr. Murphy's secretar' caN a mistake when we were told that the call was concerning Midland - but in any evcnt had we been told that the call concerned Byron my schedule would Lull nnve not permitted me to participate on Friday.
EXHIBIT B
~ 8110200639 811005 DR ADOCK 05000454 PDR i
,m
,.n
Y4, _
o o
ss-Marshall E. Miller, Esq., Chairman October 5, 1981 Page 'IWo I strenuously object to counsel for Byron arranging for conference calls without adequate notice and clearance and then mking representations to the Board (I have now seen parts of the transcript) which are factually inaccurate. Indeed, although I am not critical of the Board in light of Mr. Murphy's representation, I dc believe it prudent in the future for the Board not to participate in conference calls initiated by any party unless the offices of the Board itself verifies the availability of the parties.
Under the circumstances I believe that whatever actica was taken by the Board in the ex rte conference call be vacated and vitiated and if a conferen M is to be scheduled, it should be done under proper notice with fair u p Lanity for all parties to participate.
Fehxctfully, / lw N'
Ckerr/
1 1
m ven cc: Atcmic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Paul M. Murphy, Esq.
Dr. Bruce von Zellen
.--. 7
y*
D O
ISI-JAM, LINCOLN & BEALE COUNSELORS AT LAW ON E FIRST N ATIONAL PL AZA FORTV SECONO FLOOR CHeC AGO. ILLlNOt$ 60603 TELEPHONE 312 568-7500 TELCu*2-S2ea
~'~
iino cI2NccrSE AvcS*Ec.N.
September 18, 1981 wasroNot N. O C.2003e 202 833 9730 Mr. Myron Cherry Cherry & Flynn One IBM Plaza Suite 4501 Chicago, Illinois 60611 Re:
ICC Docket 80-0760 Rockford League of Women Voters
- v. Commonwealth Edison Company
Dear Mr. Cherry:
This letter is to confirm the fact, as c6mmunicated to your office late yesterday, that the deposition of Mr.
John Bukovski vill not go forward on September 22 as previously scheduled.
On September 10, at a meeting in the offices of Isham, Lincoln & Beale, you asked if Edison would be willing to compensate Messrs. Hubbard and Minor for their time during the taking of their depositions.
I responded that we would discuss that matter if, at the same time, we discussed the League compensating Commonwealth Edison Company for all time and expenses associated with responding to discovery initiated by the League.
You did not care to discuss it in those terms and stated you would produce Pessrs. Hubbard and Minor without resolving the question of who would pay their professional fee and obtain a subsequent ruling from the hearing examiner.
Yesterday, I received a letter from you assorting that you would not produce Messrs. Hubbard and Minor unless Edison agreed in advance to pay them $2,200 to attend a one-day deposicion.
Given that you have decided to withdraw from your previous agreement to produce the witnesses for the taking of their depositions, Edison has determined that it is appropriate to withdraw from its agreements on discovery.
l EXHIBIT C
. = _ _.
O O
/
Mr. Myron Cherry j
September 18, 1981 Page Two We intend to file with the Commission shortly the appropriate papers to obtain a ruling from the Commission on how, if at all, this proceeding should go forward.
In the meantime, you may take this letter as notice that Edison will not voluntarily respond to any discovery originated by the League in this proceeding until such matters are resolved.
Sincerely, ISHAM, LIN LN EALE By
/
Paul M. Murphy Attorneys for Commonwealth Edison Company PMM/msb cc:
Ms. Wanda Kamphuis 6
.. - - - - ~.....
/
()
law orriCCs e
C H E R R Y & F LY N N onch 8M PLAZA C HICAGO, ILLINOIS 60 618 lata) ses.urr Septa ber 22, 1981 Paul M. F11rphy, Esq.
Isham, Lincoln & Beale One First Naticulal Plaza Forty-Second Floor 01icago, Illinois 60603 Pe: Ibckford Ieague of. Wcrnen Voters
- v. Ccuronwealth Edison Ctroany
Dear Paul:
'Ihe arrangements with respect to Messrs. Minor and Hnhh'rd cannot be equated with Comonwealth Edison's enployees. Messrs, Minor and Hubbard are not parties, but expert witnesses. You have no right to force an expert witness to testify for you in a deposition without payment. On the other hand, employees of Camonwealth Edison nust respond to, discovery requests because they are a party. Unless you arrange for paynent up front, they (not I) refuse to attend based on their experience with your law firm ja the past (e_.g., when you promised to reimburse them, but then broke your word until a Hearing Examiner ordered you to pay them).
As for your series of self-serving misrepresentations in your recent letter (which you had the curious elan to send to Ms.
Ka:rphuis), I can only add that if you continue to display such conduct I shall sinply inform Mr. Miller to assign another lawyer frcan luir office to the case who has better manners (and perhaps a better ability to represent Camonwealth Edison in a professional atnosphere).
Following your lead, I am sending a copy of this letter to Ms. Kanphuis.
Since) r i.N\\n M. Cherr' i,
FBC/dn Ms. Wanda Kanphuis, Hearing Examiner cc:
Michael I. Miller, Esq.
/
EXHIBIT D
_