ML20036C214
| ML20036C214 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 06/09/1993 |
| From: | Robert Davis NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC) |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| 93-01-PF, 93-1-PF, 93-673-01-PF, 93-673-1-PF, NUDOCS 9306150263 | |
| Download: ML20036C214 (37) | |
Text
Y, l
c
- 5. -
I e
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
-i DOCKETED NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION-US NRC ALJ ATOMIC SAFETY.AND LICENSING. BOARD Before Administrative Law Judge DocNumber 2 7 Morton B. Margulies j
)
i In the Matter Of
)
Docket No. 93-01-PF
)
LLOYD P.
ZERR
)
ASLBP 103. 93-673-01-PFL
)
)
NRC MOTION FOR DISCOVERY BY INTERROGATORIES.
REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS AND PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
- l The Nuclear Regulatory Commission ("NRC") requests an order, l
f pursuant to 10 C.F.R. S 13.21(d), permitting the NRC to conduct the proposed discovery that is set forth in the attached copies _
j
+
of "NRC's Request to Defendant for Admission of Facts and Genuineness cf Documents (" Attachment "A")
and " Interrogatories
-l and Requests for Production of Documents to Defendant" l
I (Attachment "B").2 As explained below, the purposes of the NRC-discovery satisfy the grounds for discovery as. established in~10
.i C.F.R.
S 13.21(d) (3), and the Defendant has not provided reasoned i
justification for the denial of the discovery.
j I
-i
)
(
2 In accordance with the Scheduling Order dated May 20, j
1993, counsel for the NRC submitted a copy of this discovery to Defendant's counsel on May 24, 1993.
On June 4, 1993, the NRC l
received the attached " Objections to NRC Discovery Request" l
(Attachment "C').
l 9306150263 930609 i
0(
(
f 2
I.
THE NRC'S REQUEST TO DEFENDANT FOR ADMISSION OF FACTS AND GENUINENESS OF DOCUMENTS i
The "NRC Request to Defendant for Admission of Facts and Genuineness of Documents" ("NRC Request") is clearly necessary for the expeditious, fair and reasonable consideration of the issues.
Admissions reduce the time and expense involved in further investigation and presentation of evidence that cannot be disputed at hearing.2 They simplify the issues and reduce the time that is required to try the case.
They aid in disposition of summary judgment motions, which are currently scheduled to be submitted by July 2, 1993.
They are a principal means of preparing for, and ensuring, an efficient prehearing conference.
They should also prompt the Defendant to assess honestly the risks of hearing and thus might promote settlement of the matter.
In Part I of the NRC Request, the NRC asks that the Defendant admit to the genuineness and admissibility at hearing of thirty-nine principal documents pertaining to the allegations.
These requests are intended to promote efficient and economical consideration of the issues.
These documents concern such matters as the Defendant's time and attendance forms, earning and leave statements, travel vouchers, residential, furniture and car rental agreements and related payment records.
Requiring the 2
Under Rule 37(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil j
Procedure, a party who is forced to prove the genuineness of a document or truth of a matter after an opposing party has failed to admit such matters may seek an order requiring the other party to pay the reasonable expenses incurred in making the proof,
)
including reasonable attorneys' fees.
.,s 3
defendant to admit or deny such written requests does not require undue cost or burden or delay the proceeding.
The one hundred and forty-nine specific requests for admission of facts in Part II of the NRC Request are drawn almost entirely from the specific and narrowly drawn matters of fact that are alleged in the complaint.
After two extensions of time to file an answer meeting the requirements of 10 C.F.R. S 13.9(b)
(requiring an admission or denial of each allegation of liability), the Defendant filed an answer in which the response to nearly every factual allegation was that the defendant was without documentation in question and without sufficient knowledge or information to admit or deny the allegations.
For instance, paragraph 16 of the complaint includes specific statements concerning the amount of overtime claimed by the Defendant during Pay Period 11 in 1990 and and the amount that he was paid for that overtime claim.
The Defendant responded that he submitted "a voucher in question" but claimed insufficient knowledge for further response.
Paragraph G-16 of Defendant's Answer served February 17, 1993.
Similarly illustrative is Defendant's response to paragraph 22 of the Complaint concerning Defendant's submission of a voucher for furniture rental, his return of that furniture and receipt of a partial refund.
Id. at G-22.
Identical or similar responses were provided in response to specific allegations regarding residential and automobile rentals and vouchers relating to those rentals.
- Egg, e.a.,
id.
at G-62, 67 and 72.
4
. s,t 4
At the prehearing conference in this case on April 5,
- 1993, NRC counsel indicated that they had been surprised by the lack of documentation in the possession of the Defendant's counsel (Tr.
at 14, lines 1-2).3 In regard to the need for amendment of the pleadings, the NRC counsel indicated that at that point they were not aware of a need for amendment of the pleadings or a more definite statement (id. at 7, lines 14-15), but that requests for i
admission should be available to simplify'and narrow the issues (Tr. at 4, line 24 to 5, line 5; id. at 8, lines 8-12).
The i
proposed requests for admission represent the NRC's reasonable effort to obtain specific responses to the allegations of-the-I complaint and to simplify the issues in the case for the purposes of summary motions and hearing.'
The Defendant's objection to the requests for admission is that they are " redundant and contrary to his constitutional rights."
The NRC is unable to respond to the vague assertion of constitutional rights.
As to the claim of redundancy, the NRC j
has noted that nearly all of the requests for admission of fact are drawn from the Complaint.
The slight revisions in these requests are for the purpose of making the very specific allegations of fact even more specific.
As also noted above,
(
Within a few days of the hearing, NRC counsel learned that Mr. Zerr's counsel for the related criminal matter in the Southern District of Georgia had been given open' discovery by the Assistant United States Attorney handling the case and that this j
discovery had included the investigative report of the NRC's Office of Inspector General and the exhibits to that report.
Unless the NRC is permitted to seek the requested
[
admissions, the NRC will find it necessary to move for a more i
definite answer or for the striking of the answer.
l r
i
s,.
5 most of these allegations from the complaint met with an answer that the defendant did not have sufficient documentation and knowledge to admit or deny.5 Now that the Defendant clearly has possession of the vouchers and other exhibits upon which the underlying investigative report and complaint were based, the Defendant surely should be able to respond to these specific factual matters regarding his own pay and travel claims.
II.
The NRC's Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents to Defendant The NRC seeks to require defendant to answer nine interrogatories as set forth in Attachment B.
Three of these interrogatories (Nos.
1, 3 and 5) seek the defendant's description of the nature and location of overtime hours worked by defendant during the pay periods in which it is alleged in the Complaint that he submitted false claims for overtime.
In f
paragraph 5 of the Complaint, the NRC alleges that the Defendant has claimed that his overtime claims included lunch and commuting times and that the Defendant has no explanation for the whereabouts of claimed work outside the protected area of the 5
only a small percentage of the requests for admission of fact constitute factual matters as to which the defendant actually provided an admission or denial in his answer in this case.
These particular requests for admissions generally seek admissions that defendant's specified claims were false and that the defendant knew or had reason to know that the claims were false, fictitious, or fraudulent.
Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 13.20 and the Prehearing Conference Order dated April 7, 1993, the NRC's provided over 1200 pages of documentation to the defendant in mid-April, 1993, including the underlying investigative report, exhibits to that report and additional materials relating to the investigation.
Thus, provision of this documentation may have altered the Defendant's positions on these specific requests, and the purposes of requests for admission generally would be served by admissions or denials of these specific requests as well.
6 i
Hatch Nuclear Power Plant.
The Defendant denied these allegations.
Thus, these interrogatories are specifically designed to resolve the conflict between what the NRC alleges to be previous statements of the Defendant and the Defendant's answer and to narrow the issues for further investigation and hearing.
Three of the interrogatories (Nos.
2, 4 and 6) seek the Defendant's identification of persons with knowledge of the nature and location of the claimed overtime, and one interrogatory (No. 7) further seeks the identification of any person with knowledge tending to prove or disprove the alleged falsity of the overtime claims.
In the definition of " identify,"
the NRC excludes from its request any person who is named in the underlying report of investigation.
Thus, the NRC simply seeks the Defendant's identification of any person with relevant j
knowledge who was not identified in the underlying investigation by the NRC's Office of Inspector General.
Interrogatory No. 8 seeks Defendant's identification of any document concerning the nature, location or extent of overtime hours other than the documents that have been provided by the NRC to Defendant in this I
proceeding.
i Interrogatory No. 9 seeks Defendant's identification of any person with knowledge as to whether Defendant submitted false travel claims as alleged in the Complaint.
Again, the NRC is seeking to discover only potential witnesses known to the Defendant but not the NRC.
~
7 i
The Requests for Production are equally reasonable and.
necessary to a fair and expeditious proceeding.
Through these J
l requests, the NRC seeks only to inspect and copy documents t
relevant to the case that are in the custody, control or possession of the Defendant but may not be known to the NRC.
In i
paragraph 3 of the Definitions, the NRC expressly excluded from j
the scope of its request an exact copy of a document that'was produced by the NRC to the Defendant during this proceeding.
III.
Conclusion The NRC is surprised by the nearly blanket objections to its reasonable discovery requests.
The NRC's requests are necessary for the fair, expeditious and reasonable consideration of the issues in this case.
Substantial inefficiencies and costs will be avoided by permitting the NRC's requested discovery.
Therefore, the NRC respectfully requests that this motion be i
granted.
I Respectfully submitted, l
< y K. bd Roger K.
Davis
~
Daryl M.
Shapiro U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission office of the General Counsel Mail Stop 15 B18 Washington, DC 20555 i
Tel. 301/504-1606 Attorneys for the NRC
[
DATED:
June 9, 1993 l
l I
)
I 1
i 1
i l
l
,i I
l
. 1 I
. >.\\
ATTACHEMENT "A" l
.1 l
6 -
E
- i
' i t
t t
1 I
r F-l
}
F 1
' 4 s
E t
b
- i a
r f
f f
f i
i h
E i
l f
t h
e h
t s
a D
f Y
t 9
e
4 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD Before Administrative Law Judge Morton B. Margulies
)
In the Matter Of
)
Docket No. 93-01-PF
)
LLOYD P.
ZERR
)
ASLBP No. 93-673-01-PF
)
)
NRC'S REOUEST TO DEFENDANT FOR ADMISSION OF FACTS AND GENUINENESS OF DOCUMENTS Plaintiff United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission requests that Defendant Lloyd P.
Zerr make the following admissions for the purpose of this action only by June 10, 1993:
I.
That each of the following documents listed below and already provided to Defendant pursuant to 10 CFR S 13.20 and identified at the end of the request in parentheses by the numbered pages as stamped when produced, is (A) genuine; and (B) admissible at trial:
1.
NRC Form 145 (Request and Authorization for Irregular Overtime or Comp. Time),. dated April 20, 1990 and NRC Form 704, PP-9 (Time & Attendance)
(30-31).
2.
Hatch Card Access History, dated May 21, 1990 (321-371).
3.
NRC Forn 709, Earning and Leave Statement for ZERR, Pay Period 9 (40).
I J
s es i
2 l
4.
NRC Form 704, PP-10 (Time & Attendance), and NRC l
Form 145 (Request and Authorization for Irregular i
Overtime or Comp. Time) dated May 7, 1990 (32-33).
5.
NRC Form 709, Earning and Leave Statement for-ZERR, Pay Period 10. (41).
6.
NRC Form 704, PP-11 (Time & Attendance), and NRC Form 145 (Request and Authorization for Irregular Overtime or Comp. Time) dated May 19, 1990 (34-35).
7.
NRC Form 709, Earning and Leave Statement for
+
ZERR, Pay Period 11 (42).
8.
Travel Voucher, Auth. No. R805842, dated September 11, 1989 for period 8/26/89 to 9/15/89 (52-60).
9.
Travel Voucher, Auth. No. R905842, dated September 28, 1989 for period 9/16/89 to 9/30/89 (61-69).
10.
Rental Application CORT Furniture Rental (222).
11.
Lease Agreement, Account No. 006163, dated August 29, 1989 (223-224).
12.
Pick-up Order, Account No. 006163, dated September 13, 1989 (227-228).
13.
Travel Voucher, Auth. No. R000002, dated October 12, 1989 for period 10/1/89 to 10/15/89 (70-80).
14.
Travel Voucher, Auth. No. R000002, dated November 1, 1989 for period 10/16/89 to 10/31/89 (81-90).
15.
Travel Voucher, Auth. No. R000002, dated November 8, 1989 for period 11/1/89 to 11/15/89 (91-101).
L 16.
Travel voucher, Auth. No. R000002, dated November 29, 1989 for period 11/16/89 to 11/30/89 (103-104).
17.
Travel Voucher, Auth. No. R000002, dated December 13, 1989 for period 12/1/89 to 12/15/89 (107-108 and 110-123).
3 18.
Travel Voucher, Auth. No. R000002, dated January 2, 1990 for period 12/16/89 to 12/31/89 (124-138).
l 19.
Travel Voucher, Auth. No. R000002, dated March 21, 1990 for period 1/1/90 to 3/2/90 (139-142).
20.
Travel Voucher, Auth. No. R002305, dated April 2, 1990 for period 3/3/90 to J/31/90 (143-159).
21.
HERTZ Rental Agreement No. 577667871, dated August 25, 1989 (229-231).
l l
I 22.
Memorandum for FILE, from FIELDS, and attached subpoenaed records from Hertz Corporation (232-254).
23.
Letter from Michael E. Gravel, THE HERTZ CORPORATION, to OIG w/ Attachments, dated February 13, 1991 (255-268).
24.
Travel Voucher, Auth. No. R002305, dated May 1, 1990 for period 4/1/90 to 4/30/90.(160-169).
25.
Residential Rental Agreement, dated March 15, 1990 (300-302).
26.
Copy of ledger from ERA Lovins Realty, payment by L. ZERR (305).
27.
Federal Travel Regulation Maximum Per Diem Rates, dated October 17, 1988 (306-315).
28.
Travel Voucher, Auth. No. R002305, dated December 24, 1990 for period 5/1/90 to 9/30/90 (170-171, 173 and 175-217).
29.
Travel Voucher, Auth. No. R9B3154, travel Sept. 11-15, 1989, dated Jan.
2, 1990 (269-271).
30.
Travel Voucher, Auth. No. ROB 0011,. travel Oct.
2-6, 1989, dated Jan.
2, 1990 (272-274).
31.
Travel Voucher, Auth. No. ROB 0027, travel Oct. 16-26, 1989, dated Jan.
2, 1990 (275-277).
32.
Travel Voucher, Auth. No. ROB 0393, travel Nov. 13-17, 1989, dated Jan.
2, 1990 (278-280).
f 33.
Travel Voucher, Auth. No. ROB 0656, travel t
Dec.
4-8, 3989, dated,Jan.
2, 1990 (281-283).
i
=.
4 34.
Travel Voucher, Auth. No. ROB 0841, travel Jan. 8-12, 1990, dated Jan. 16, 1990 (284-286).
35.
Travel Voucher, Auth. No. ROB 0993, travel Jan. 22-26, 1990, dated Jan. 29, 1990 (287-289).-
36.
Travel Voucher, Auth. No. ROB 1098, travel Feb.
5-9, 1990, dated Feb. 12, 1990 (290-292).
37.
Travel Voucher, Auth. No. ROB 1505, travel Mar. 13-15, 1990, dated April 2, 1990 (293-296).
j 38.
NRC Form 279, Official Travel Auuhorization, No.
R905842 and No. R000002 signed by Zerr on July 26, 1990 (50).
39.
NRC Form 279, Official Travel Authorization, No. R002305 signed by Zerr on Jan.
4, 1990 (51).
II.
That each of the following statements'is true:
1.
For Pay Period 9, covering April 8 through April 21, 1990, Defendant submitted to the NRC Region II Office NRC Form 145 (Request and Authorization for Irregular or Occasional Overtime or Compensatory Time), dated April 20, 1990, claiming compensation for 48 hours5.555556e-4 days <br />0.0133 hours <br />7.936508e-5 weeks <br />1.8264e-5 months <br /> of overtime, with an explanation as
" QUALIFYING / INSPECTING."
2.
The Form 145 contains a statement that the employee certifies that the employee worked the overtime hours specified.
3.
Defendant phoned the amount of regular and overtime hours during Pay Period 9 for which he sought payment, i
to Region II on April 19, 1990.
4.
With Defendant's authorization, his section chief signed for Defendant below the certification statement on Defendant's Form 145 for Pay Period 9.
5.
The NRC paid Defendant for 80 regular hours of work plus 48 hours5.555556e-4 days <br />0.0133 hours <br />7.936508e-5 weeks <br />1.8264e-5 months <br /> of overtime for Pay Period 9, covering April 8,
through April 21, 1990.
6.
The Hatch plant records show that Defendant only worked 77.25 hours2.893519e-4 days <br />0.00694 hours <br />4.133598e-5 weeks <br />9.5125e-6 months <br /> in the protected area of the plant during Pay 1
Period 9 in 1990.
7.
Defendant claims that the claimed overtime for' Pay Period 9 in,1990 included lunch and commuting times.
5 8.
Defendant knew or should have known that overtime is not allowed for lunch time.
9.
Defendant knew or should have known that overtime is not allowed for commuting time.
10.
The NRC paid Defendant $938.88 for overtime for pay period 9 in 1990 for which he was not entitled.
11.
For Pay Period 10, covering April 22 through May 5, 1990, Defendant signed and submitted to the NRC Region II Office NRC Form 145, dated May 5, 1990, claiming compensation for 51 hours5.902778e-4 days <br />0.0142 hours <br />8.43254e-5 weeks <br />1.94055e-5 months <br /> of overtime.
12.
Defendant signed the certification on the Form 145, for Pay period 10 in 1990, that the overtime was necessary and that he worked the 51.5 hours5.787037e-5 days <br />0.00139 hours <br />8.267196e-6 weeks <br />1.9025e-6 months <br />.
13.
The NRC paid Defendant for 51 hours5.902778e-4 days <br />0.0142 hours <br />8.43254e-5 weeks <br />1.94055e-5 months <br /> of overtime for Pay Period 10 in 1990.
14.
The Hatch plant records indicate that Defendant worked only 17.25 hours2.893519e-4 days <br />0.00694 hours <br />4.133598e-5 weeks <br />9.5125e-6 months <br /> of overtime for Pay Period 10 in 1990.
15.
Defendant claims that the unaccounted 33.75 hours8.680556e-4 days <br />0.0208 hours <br />1.240079e-4 weeks <br />2.85375e-5 months <br /> for overtime included his lunch and commuting times.
16.
The NRC paid Defendant $660.15 for overtime for pay Period 10 in 1990 for which Defendant was not entitled.
17.
For Pay Period 11, covering May 6 through May 19, 1990, Defendant signed and submitted to the Region II Office NRC Form 145, dated May 19, 1990, claiming compensation for 50 hours5.787037e-4 days <br />0.0139 hours <br />8.267196e-5 weeks <br />1.9025e-5 months <br /> overtime with the explanation as " Inspection / Qualification."
18.
Defendant signed the certification on the Form 145, for Pay Period 11 in 1990, that the overtime was necessary and that he worked the 50 hours5.787037e-4 days <br />0.0139 hours <br />8.267196e-5 weeks <br />1.9025e-5 months <br />.
19.
The NRC paid Defendant for 50 hours5.787037e-4 days <br />0.0139 hours <br />8.267196e-5 weeks <br />1.9025e-5 months <br /> overtime for Pay Period 11 in 1990.
20.
The Hatch plant records indicate that Defendant worked only 23 overtime hours for Pay Period 11 in 1990.
21.
The NRC paid Defendant $528.12 for overtime in Pay Period 11 in 1990 for which Defendant was not entitled.
22.
On September 28, 1989, Defendant submitted to the NRC Headquarters, Rockville, MD, Travel Voucher R905842 for
$1,619.15 covering the period September 16 through September 30,,
1989.
i 1
- -- -=
6 23.
Defendant signed all vouchers submitted between September 28, 1989 and December 24, 1990, and certified that each voucher was true and correct to the best of his knowledge and belief.
24.
Included in this voucher dated September 28, 1989, was a claim for furniture rented as authorized on August 26, j
1989, from Cort Rental, Atlanta, GA, at a monthly rate of
$535.83.
25.
Defendant returned all the rented furniture to Cort Rental on September 19, 1989, and received a partial refund.
26.
Defendant did not inform any NRC official that he returned the furniture rented from Cort Rental to Cort Rental on September 19, 1989.
27.
After September 19, 1989, Defendant did not rent any furniture in connection with NRC official travel.
28.
Defendant claimed reimbursement from the NRC on Travel Voucher R905842 dated September 28, 1989, for $154.33 in furniture rent for the part of September 1989 in which Defendant no longer rented the furniture.
29.
Defendant knew or had reason to know at the time he submitted Travel voucher R905842 dated September 28, 1989, that the claim for furniture rental for this period was false, fictitious, or fraudulent.
30.
The NRC paid Defendant $154.33 for furniture rental, as claimed under Travel Voucher R905842 covering the period September 16 through September 30, 1989, for which Defendant was not entitled.
31.
On October 12, 1989, Defendant submitted to the NRC Headquarters, Rockville, MD, Travel Voucher R000002 for
$1,663.57 covering the period October 1 through October 15, 1989.
32.
Included in the voucher is a claim of $267.91 for furniture rented as authorized on August 26, 1989, from Cort Rental, Atlanta, GA, at a monthly rate of $535.83.
33.
Defendant knew or had reason to know at the time he submitted Travel Voucher R000002 dated October 12, 1989, that the claim for furniture rental for this period was false, fictitious, or fraudulent.
34.
The NRC paid Defendant $267.91 for furniture rental, as claimed under Travel Voucher R000002 covering the l
i r
i, 7
period October 1 through October 15, 1989, for which Defendant was not entitled.
35.
On November 1, 1989, Defendant submitted to the NRC Headquarters, Rockville, MD, Travel Voucher R000002 for
$1,604.15 covering the period October 16 through October 31, 1989.
1 36.
The voucher dated November 1, 1989, includes a claim for $267.92 in furniture rental for the period October 16 through October 31, 1989.
i 37.
Defendant knew or had reason to know at the time he submitted Travel Voucher R000002 dated November 1, 1989, that the claim for furniture rental for this period was false, fictitious, or fraudulent.
38.
The NRC paid Defendant $267.92 for furniture rental, as claimed under Travel Voucher R000002 covering the period October 16 through October 31, 1989, for which Defendant was not entitled.
39.
On November 8, 1989, Defendant submitted to the NRC Headquarters, Rockville, MD, Travel Voucher R000002 for
$1,623.80 covering the period November 1 through November 15, 1989.
40.
Included in the voucher dated November 8,
- 1989, was a claim of $267.91 for furniture rented.
41.
Defendant knew or had reason to know at the time he submitted Travel Voucher R000002 dated November 8, 1989, that the claim for furniture rental for this period was' false, fictitious, or fraudulent.
1 i
42.
The NRC paid Defendant $267.91 for furniture rental, as claimed under Travel Voucher R000002 covering the period November 1 through November 15, 1989, for which Defendant I
was not entitled.
43.
On November 29, 1989, Defendant submitted to the NRC Headquarters, Rockville, MD, Travel Voucher R000002 for
$1,625.65 covering the period November 16 through November 30, 1989.
44.
Included in the voucher dated ~ November 29, 1989, is a claim of $267.92 for furniture rented.
45.
Defendant knew or had reason to know at the time he submitted Travel Voucher R000002 dated November 29, 1989, that t
the claim for furniture rental for this period was false, fictitious, or fraudulent.-
i J
8 46.
The NRC paid Defendant $267.91 for furniture rental, as claimed under Travel Voucher R000002 covering the period November 16 through November 30, 1989, for which Defendant was not entitled.
47.
On December 13, 1989, Defendant submitted to the NRC Headquarters, Rockville, MD, Travel Voucher R000002 for
$1,673.09 covering the period December 1 through December 15, 1989.
48.
The voucher dated December 13, 1989, includes a claim for $267.91 in furniture rental for the period December 1 through December 15, 1989.
49.
Defendant knew or had reason to know at the time he submitted Travel Voucher R000002 dated December 13, 1989, that the claim for furniture rental for this period was false, fictitious, or fraudulent.
50.
The NRC paid Defendant $267.91 for furniture rental, as claimed under Travel Voucher R000002 covering the period December 1 through December 15, 1989, for which Defendant I
was not entitled.
51.
Defendant submitted to the NRC Headquarters, Rockville, MD, Travel Voucher R000002 dated January 1, 1990, for
$1,635.98 covering the period December 16 through December 31, 1989.
52.
The voucher covering the period December 16 through December 31, 1989, included a claim for $267.92 in furniture rental.
53.
Defendant knew or had reason to know at the time he submitted Travel Voucher R000002 dated January 1, 1990, that the claim for furniture rental for this period was false, fictitious, or fraudulent.
54.
The NRC paid Defendant $267.91 for furniture rental, as claimed under Travel Voucher R000002 covering the period December 16 through December 31, 1989, for which Defendant was not entitled.
55.
On March 21, 1990, Defendant submitted to the NRC Headquarters, Rockville, MD, Travel Voucher R000002 for $6,655.36 covering the period January 1 through March 2, 1990.
56.
The voucher dated March 21, 1990, includes a claim I
for $1,089.52 in furniture rental for the period January 1 through March 2, 1990.
t 9
57.
Defendant knew or had reason to know at the time he submitted Travel Voucher R000002 dated March 21, 1990, that l
the claim for furniture rental for this period was false, fictitious, or fraudulent.
58.
The NRC paid Defendant $1,089.52 for furniture rental, as claimed under Travel Voucher R000002 covering the period January 1 through March 2, 1990, for which Defendant was not entitled.
59.
On April 2, 1990, Defendant submitted to the NRC i
Headquarters, Rockville, MD, Travel Voucher R002305 for
$3,140.73, covering the period March 3 through March 31, 1990.
60.
Defendant claimed on Travel Voucher R002305
$517.90 for furniture rental for the period March 3 through March 31, 1990.
~ 61.
On August 25, 1989, Defendant rented as authorized a Mercury Cougar from the Hertz Corporation, Gaithersburg, MD, for $686.16 on a month-to-month arrangement.
62.
On February 20, 1990, Defendant returned the Mercury to Hertz and rented instead a Volvo at $577.18 per month, with no notification to any NRC official of the exchange in automobiles or the difference in the amount of rent.
63.
Defendant claimed on this voucher dated April 2, 1990, reimbursement for renting the Mercury from March 3 through March 31, 1990, at the higher rate for the Mercury, which he did not rent during this period, instead of the lower rate he actually paid for renting the Volvo from March 3 through March 31, 1990, a difference of $91.63.
6 64.
Travel Voucher R002305 dated April 2,
- 1990, i
includes total false claims of $609.60 in furniture ($517.90) and car ($91.63) rentals in excess of what he actually paid for the March 3 through March 31, 1990, period.
j 65.
Defendant knew or had reason to know at the time he submitted Travel Voucher R002305 dated April 2, 1990, that the l
claims for furniture and car rental for this period were false, fictitious, or fraudulent.
66.
The NRC paid Defendant $609.60 for furniture and car rental, as claimed on Travel Voucher R002305 covering the period March 3 through March 31, 1990, for which Defendant was 4
not entitled.
J 67.
On May 1, 1990, Defendant submitted to the NRC Headquarters, Rockville, MD, Travel Voucher R002305 for
$3,244.06, covering the' period April 1 through April 30, 1990.
l
t 2
i r
t 10 i
68.
Included in this voucher dated May 1, 1990, was a claim of $535.83 for furniture rented.
69.
Defendant claimed reimbursement on this voucher for car rental for the period April 1 through April 30, 1990, at
+
the higher rate for the Mercury, which he did not rent during.
this period, instead of the lower amount he actually paid for the Volvo, a difference of $108.90.
70.
On March 15, 1990, Defendant signed a six-month l
rental agreement, to begin on April 1, 1990, with ERA Lovins Realty and Investment Company, Vidalia, GA, for a house in l
Vidalia at a monthly rent of $600.
71.
Defendant altered the rental agreement submitted to the NRC by changing the monthly rent from $600 to $875.
72.
Defendant paid ERA Lovins Realty $600 for rent for
[
April 1990.
t 73.
Defendant claimed on this voucher dated May 1, 1990, reimbursement for $875 in rent for this house for April 1990, a difference of $275.
74.
Defendant claimed on this voucher dated May 1, 1990, reimbursement for meals and incidental expenses (M&IE) for the period April 1 through April 30, 1990, at the Atlanta, GA, rate while he was actually living during this period in Vidalia, GA, where the rate is lower, an overcharge of $30 for April 1990.
75.
Travel Voucher R002305 dated May 1, 1990, contains false claims totalling $949.73 for furniture rental ($535.83),
car rental ($108.90), housing rental ($275), and M&IE expenses
($30).
76.
Defendant knew or had reason to know at the time he submitted Travel voucher R002305 covering the period April 1 through April 30, 1990, that the claims for furniture, car, and housing rentals and M&IE for this period were false, fictitious, or fraudulent.
77.
The NRC paid Defendant $949.73 for M&IE and furniture, car, housing rental, as claimed under Travel Voucher R002305 covering the period April 1 through April 30, 1990, for which he was not entitled.
78.
On December 24, 1990, Defendant submitted to the NRC Headquarters, Rockville, MD, Travel Voucher R002305 for
$18,122.61, covering the period May 1 through September 30, 1990.
79.
Included in this voucher dated December 24, 1990, was a claim of $2,679.15 for furniture rented.
4 9
h 11 80.
Defendant claimed reimbursement on this voucher dated December 24, 1990, for car rental for the May 1 through September 30, 1990, period at the higher rate for the Mercury, which he did not rent during this period, instead of the lower amount he actually paid for the Volvo, a difference of $540.50.
i 81.
Defendant paid ERA Lovins Realty $600 rent for the period May 1 through September 30, 1990.
82.
Defendant altered the rental agreement submitted to the NRC by changing the monthly rent from $600 to $875.
83.
Defendant claimed on this voucher dated December I
24, 1990, reimbursement for rent at a rate of $875 for each month during this period, a difference totalling $1,375.
84.
Defendant claimed reimbursement on this voucher
{
dated December 24, 1990, for meals and incidental expenses (M&IE) for the May 1 through September 30, 1990, period at the Atlanta, GA, rate while he was actually living in Vidalia, GA, where the rate is lower, an overcharge of $153 for this.
85.
Travel Voucher R002305 covering the period May.1 through September 30, 1990, contains false claims totalling
$4,747.65 for furniture rental ($2,679.15), car rental ($54 0. 50),
housing rental ($1,375), and M&IE expenses ($153).
i 86.
Defendant knew or had reason to know at the time he submitted Travel Voucher R002305, covering the period May 1 through September 30, 1990, that the claims for furniture, car, and housing rentals and M&IE for this period were false, fictitious, or fraudulent.
87.
On January 2, 1990, Defendant submitted to the NRC Region II Office, Atlanta, GA, Travel Voucher R9B3154 for
$402.79, covering the period September 11 through September 15, 1989.
88.
Included in this voucher dated January 2,
- 1990, were claims for meals and incidental expenses (M&IE) ($123.50) and mileage for use of a personal car for official purposes
($155.25).
89.
During the time period September 11, 1989 to March l
15, 1990, Defendant did not use a personal vehicle for official purposes.
90.
The only vehicle he used for official purposes during this period was a rental car for which he was fully reimbursed for its rent and related expenses, including gas and parking, on his vouchers to the NRC Headquarters.
i
{
12 91.
Defendant was also reimbursed for his M&IE expenses on Travel Voucher R905842, dated September 11, 1989, which he submitted to the NRC Headquarters.
92.
Travel Voucher R9B3154 contains false claims totalling $278.75 for mileage for use of a personal car ($155.25) and M&IE ($123.50).
93.
Defendant knew or had reason to know at the time he submitted Travel Voucher R9B3154 that the claims for M&IE and i
mileage on a personal vehicle during this period were false, fictitious, or fraudulent.
t 94.
The NRC paid Defendant $278.75 for use of a person car for official purposes and ME&I, as claimed under Travel Voucher R9B3154 covering the period September 11 through September 15, 1989, for which he was not entitled.
95.
On January 2, 1990, Defendant submitted to the NRC i
Region II Office, Atlanta, GA, Travel Voucher ROB 0011 for
$580.40, covering the period October 2 through October 6, 1989.
96.
Included in this voucher were claims for meals and incidental expenses (M&IE) ($130.00) and mileage for use of a personal car for official purposes ($218.40).
97.
Defendant was also reimbursed for his M&IE expenses on Travel Voucher R000002, dated October 12, 1989, which he submitted to the NRC Headquarters.
98.
Travel Voucher ROB 0011 contains false claims totalling $348.40 for mileage for use of a personal car ($218.40) and M&IE expenses ($130.00).
99.
Defendant knew or had reason to know at the time he submitted Travel Voucher ROB 0011 that the claims for M&IE and mileage on a personal vehicle during this period were false, fictitious, or fraudulent.
100. The NRC paid Defendant $348.40 for use of a person car for official purposes and ME&I, as claimed under Travel Voucher ROB 0011 covering the period October 2 through October 6, 1989, for which he was not entitled.
101. On January 2, 1990, Defendant submitted to the NRC Region II Office, Atlanta, GA, Travel Voucher ROB 0027 for
$860.74, covering the period October 16 through October 26, 1989.
102. Included in this voucher were claims for meals and incidental expenses (M&IE) ($221.00) and mileage for use of a personal car for official _ purposes ($261.60).
l
l i
13 i
l 103. Defendant was also reimbursed for his M&IE expenses on Travel Voucher R000002, dated November 1, 1989, which he submitted to the NRC Headquarters.
104. Travel Voucher ROB 0027 contains false claims totalling $482.60 for mileage for use of a personal car ($261.60) and M&IE expenses ($221.00).
105. Defendant knew or had reason to know at the time l
he submitted Travel Voucher ROB 0027 that the claims for M&IE and i
mileage on a personal vehicle during this period were false, i
fictitious, or fraudulent.
106. The NRC paid Defendant $482.60 for use of a person car for official purposes and ME&I as described in Travel Voucher i
ROB 0027 for which he was not entitled.
107.
On January 2, 1990, Defendant submitted to the NRC Region II Office, Atlanta, GA, Travel Voucher ROB 0393, covering the period November 13 through November 17, 1989.
j 108.
Included in the this voucher were claims for meals and incidental expenses (M&IE) ($102.00) and mileage for use of personal vehicle for official purposes ($12. 00).
109.
Defendant was also reimbursed for his M&IE expenses on Travel Voucher R000002, dated November 11, 1989, which he submitted to the NRC Headquarters.
110.
Travel Voucher ROB 0393 contains false claims totalling $114.00 for mileage for use of a personal car ($12.00) and M&IE expenses ($102.00).
111.
Defendant knew or had reason to know at the time I
he submitted Travel Voucher ROB 0393 that the claims for M&IE and mileage on a personal vehicle during this period were false, I
fictitious, and fraudulent.
112.
The NRC paid Defendant $114.00 for use of a person car for official purposes and ME&I as described in Travel Voucher ROB 0393 for which he was not entitled.
4 113.
On January 2, 1990, Defendant submitted to the NRC Region II Office, Atlanta, GA, Travel Voucher ROB 0656, i
covering the period December 4 through December 8, 1989.
114.
Included in this voucher were claims for meals and incidental expenses (M&IE) ($123.50) and mileage for use of a personal vehicle for official purposes ($12.00).
l 14 115.
Defendant was also reimbursed for his M&IE expenses on Travel voucher R000002, dated December 13, 1989, which he submitted to the NRC Headquarters.
i 116.
Travel Voucher ROB 0656 contains false claims totalling $135.50 for mileage for use of a personal vehicle
($12.00) and M&IE expenses ($123.50).
117.
Defendant knew or had reason to know at the time i
he submitted Traval "oucher ROB 0656 that the claims for M&IE and mileage on a personal vahicle during this period were false, fictitious, er frauduler t.
a 118.
ine NRC paid Defendant $135.50 for use of a person car for official purposes and ME&I as described in Travel Voucher ROB 0656 for which he was not entitled.
119. On January 16, 1990, Defendant submitted to the NRC Region II Office, Atlanta, GA, Travel Voucher ROB 0841, covering the period January 8 through January 12, 1990.
120. Included in this voucher were claims for meals and incidental expenses (M&IE) ($123.50) and mileage for use of a personal vehicle for official purposes ($208.80).
121. Defendant was also reimbursed for his M&IE I
expenses on Travel Voucher R000002, dated March 21, 1990, which he submitted to the NRC Headquarters.
122. Travel Voucher ROB 0841 contains false claims totalling $332.30 for mileage for use of a personal vehicle
($208.80) and M&IE expenses ($123.50).
j 123.
Defendant knew or had reason to know at the time he submitted Travel voucher ROB 0841 that the claims for M&IE and mileage on a personal vehicle during this period were false, fictitious, or fraudulent.
124.
The NRC paid Defendant $332.30 for use of a person car for official purposes and ME&I as described in Travel Voucher ROB 0841 for which he was not entitled.
125.
On January 29, 1990, Defendant submitted to the NRC Region II Office, Atlanta, GA, Travel Voucher ROB 0993 covering the period January 22 through January 26, 1990.
3 126. Included in this voucher were claims for meals and incidental expenses (M&IE) ($117.00) and mileage for use of a personal vehicle for official purposes ($12.00).
l
T,.
15 127. Defendant was also reimbursed for his M&IE expenses on Travel voucher R000002, dated March 21, 1990, which he submitted to the NRC Headquarters.
128. Travel Voucher ROB 0993 contains false claims totalling $129.00 for mileage for use of a personal car ($12.00) and M&IE expenses ($117.00).
l 129.
Defendant knew or had reason to know at the time he submitted Travel Voucher ROB 0993 that the claims for M&IE and mileage on a personal vehicle during this period were false, fictitious, or fraudulent.
130.
The NRC paid Defendant $129.00 for use of a person car for official purposes and ME&I as described in Trevel Voucher ROB 0993 for which he was not entitled.
t 131.
On February 12, 1990, Defendant submitted to the NRC Region II office, Atlanta, GA, Travel Voucher ROB 1098, covering the period February 5 through February 9, 1990.
132.
Included in this voucher were claims for neals and incidental expenses (M&IE) ($123.50) and mileage for use of a personal vehicle for official purposes ($216.00).
133.
Defendant was reimbursed for his M&IE expenses on Travel Voucher R000002, dated March 21, 1990, which he submitted i
to the NRC Headquarters.
134.
Travel Voucher ROB 1098 contains false claims totalling $339.50 for mileage for use of a personal car ($216.00) and M&IE ($123.50).
135.
Defendant knew or had reason to know at the time i
he submitted Travel Voucher ROB 1098 that the claims for M&IE and mileage on a personal vehicle during this period were false, fictitious, or fraudulent.
136.
The NRC paid Defendant $339.50 for use of a person car for official purposes and ME&I as described in Travel Voucher ROB 1098 for which he was not entitled.
137.
On April 2, 1990, Defendant submitted to the NRC Region II Office, Atlanta, GA, Travel Voucher ROB 1505, covering the period March 13 through March 15, 1990.
138.
Included in this voucher were claims for meals and incidental expenses (M&IE) ($65.00) and mileage for use of a personal vehicle for official purposes ($122.88).
)
i 16 139.
Defendant was reimbursed for his M&IE expenses on Travel Voucher R002305, dated April 2, 1990, which he submitted to the NRC Headquarters.
140.
Travel Voucher ROB 1505 contains false claims totalling $187.88 for mileage for use of a personal car ($122.88) and M&IE expenses ($65.00).
141.
Defendant knew or had reason to know at the time he submitted Travel Voucher ROB 1505 that the claims for M&IE and mileage on a personal vehicle during this period were false, fictitious, or fraudulent.
142.
The NRC paid Defendant $187.88 for use of a person car for official purposes and ME&I as described in Travel Voucher ROB 1505 for which he was not entitled.
143.
Defendant was employed by the NRC from August 23, 1987, until his resignation on February 7, 1992.
144.
Defendant did not work at the Hatch Nuclear Power Plant on April 15, 1990 even though he submitted a claim for working 10 hours1.157407e-4 days <br />0.00278 hours <br />1.653439e-5 weeks <br />3.805e-6 months <br /> on that date.
145.
During the time period April 1, 1990 through September 30, 1990, Defendant resided in Vidalia, GA, not Atlanta, GA.
146.
During the time period that Defendant worl~.ed for the NRC at the Hatch Nuclear Power Plant, his office was inside the protected area of the plant.
147.
During the time period that Defendant worked at the Hatch Nuclear Power Plant for the NRC, his job responsibilities, including studying, were carried out inside the protected area of the plant.
148.
While at the Hatch Nuclear Power Plant, Defendant was issued access card number 2025 which allowed Defendant unescorted access inside the protected area.
149.
That Hatch Card Access History, dated May 21, 1990, accurately reflects the times when Defendant was inside the protected area of the plant between April 1, 1990, and May 21, 1990.
0 17 Respectfully submitted, bf1A O
e Roser g. Davis Daryl M.
Shapiro U.
S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of the General Counsel Mail Stop 15 B18 Washington, D.C.
20555 Tel. 301/504-1606 Attorneys for the NRC DATED:
May 24, 1993 l
t,.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD Before Administrative Law Judge Morton B. Margulies
)
In the Matter Of
)
Docket No. 93-01-PF
)
I LLOYD P.
ZERR
)
ASLBP No.-93-673-01-PF 1
)
)
Certificate of Service I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing NRC Request to Defendant for Admission of Facts and Genuineness of Documents was served by hand delivery to the office of counsel for Defendant, Timothy E.
Clarke, Esq., 5 North Adams Street, Rockville, MD 20850, this 24th day of May, 1993.
(/
R#gerJK. Davis
- Al
\\
rrr~
r U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of the General Counsel Mail Stop 15 B18 Washington, DC 20555 Tel. 301/504-1606 Attorney for the NRC 1
l
i I
e t
i e
1
. 6 i
I i
k
~
)
5 1
5 b
- r
?
?
ATTACHEMENT "B"
.i s
,F 6
.W f
7 a
M F
e P
E
}
Y I
- B f
6 i
i e
5 9
4 9
- 5 i
i 9
P I
t t
s I
5 e
h f
A P
t,.-
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION l
i ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
{
Before Administrative Law Judge I
Morton B. Margulies t
)
In the Matter Of
)
Docket No. 93-01-PF
)
LLOYD P.
ZERR
)
ASLBP No. 93-673-01-PF
)
)
INTERROGATORIES AND REOUESTS FOR i
PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS TO DEFENDANT The United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission ("NRC")
~i hereby propounds the following interrogatories to be answered in writing and under oath, by the Defendant, Lloyd P.
Zerr, on or before June 10, 1993, and hereby also requests the production of l
for inspection and copying the within-described documents at the offices of the NRC', 11555 Rockville Pike, 16th Floor, Rockville, MD, on or bafore June 10, 1993.
I.
DEFINITIONS 1.
" Identify," when referring to an individual, means to l
set forth the individual's name, his or her present or last'known home and business address and telephone numbers, and to state his or her present position and employer and (if different) position J
and employer at the time in question.
When referring to a i
corporation or other entity, " identify" means to state the full name of that entity, its principal place of business including address and telephone number, and to " identify" those persons
2 l
presently or formerly associated with that entity with the principal knowledge concerning the subject matter of the interrogatory and answer.
For purposes of the following interrogatories, requests to " identify" a person do not include persons who are named in the Report of Investigation by the Office of the Inspector General regarding Case No.90-47B transmitted by memorandum dated July 9, 1991, from the Inspector General to the Executive Director for Operations, which was supplied to the Defendant in this proceeding.
2.
" Identify," when referring to a document, means to state the document's title, its date, its author, the persons to whom it was directed (including "cc" and "bcc" recipients and the like), the type of document (e.g.,
letter, memorandum, chart, etc.), and its principal topic or topics.
If such document is no
[
longer in your possession or subjection to your control, state what disposition was made of it and identify the persons with possession or custody.
3.
For purposes of the following interrogatories, requusts to identify a document do not include an exact copy of a document that was produced by the NRC to the Defendant during this l
proceeding.
For purposes of the following requests for production of documents, a request to produce a document does not include an exact copy of a document that was produced by the NRC i
to the Defendant during this proceeding.
1 j
4,.
3 4.
The term " document" has the same meaning as " writings" I
and " recordings," which consist of letters, words, or numbers, or their equivalent, set down by handwriting, typewriting, printing, photostating, photographing, magnetic impulse, mechanical or electronic recording, or other forms of data compilation.
The i
term " document" also includes the originals and each and every non-identical copy, regardless of origin or location, of all writings of every kind, including but not limited to letters, bulletins, dockets, telegrams, memoranda, statistical compilations, reports, studies, legal pleadings, speeches, calendar or diary entries, travel records, expense records, promotional materials, cost records, books of account, pamphlets, handwritten notes, drafts, charges, lists, directives orders, tabulations, minutes and records of meetings and telephone records.
The term " document" further includes data 4
processing, computer print-outs, tapes, discs, or documentation i
necessary to utilize or retrieve such information, and all other mechanical or electronic means of storing or recording I
information, as well as tape, film or cassette, sound or visual l
records, and reproductions or film impressions of any of the aforementioned writings.
f 5.
" Relate" or " relating to" means pertaining to,
(
recording, evidencing, setting forth, reflecting, showing, disclosing, describing, explaining, summarizing, concerning or i
referring to.
)
s,.
4 II.
INTERROGATORIES 1.
Describe the nature and location of all overtime hours of work, if any, for which Defendant requested payment for Pay j
Period 9, covering April 8, through April 21, 1990.
2.
Identify each person with knowledge of the nature, location and extent of any overtime hours worked by Defendant for Pay Period 9 in 1990, covering April 8 through April 21, 1990.
3.
Describe the nature and location of all overtime hours of work for which Defendant requested payment for Pay Period 10 1
i in 1990, covering April 22, through May 5, 1990.
4.
Identify each person with knowledge of the nature, location and extent of all overtime hours of work by Defendant for Pay Period 10 in 1990, covering April 22 through May 5, 1990.
5.
Describe the nature and location of all overtime hours of work for which Defendant requested payment for Pay Period 11 in 1990, covering May 6 through May 19, 1990.
6.
Identify each person with knowledge of the nature, location and extent of all' overtime hours worked by Defendant for I
Pay Period 11 in 1990, covering May 6 through May 19, 1990.
7.
Identify each person with knowledge supporting, tending l
to support, disproving or tending to disprove, a contention of the Defendant that he did not submit false claims for overtime hours for Pay Periods 9, 10 and 11 in 1990, as alleged in the Complaint in this proceeding.
8.
Identify each document referring or relating to the nature, location or extent of overtime hours of work between 5
2
s,.
5 April 8 and May 29, 1990, for which Defendant requested payment, I
other than documents supplied by the NRC to Defendant in this proceeding.
9.
Identify each person with knowledge supporting, tending 1
to support, disproving or tending to disprove, a contention of the Defendant that he did not submit fair.e, fictitious or I
fraudulent travel vouchers for costs incurred between August 1, 1989 and September 30, 1990, as alleged in the Complaint in this proceeding.
III.
REOUESTS FOR PRODUCTION 1.
Produce all documents identified in your responses to the preceding interrogatories.
l 2.
Produce each document constituting a copy of a travel voucher submitted by the Defendant to the NRC for reimbursement of costs incurred between August 1, 1989 and September 30, 1990, other than the copies that were supplied to Defendant by the NRC l
t in this proceeding.
3.
Produce each document supplying information that supports, tends to support, disproves, or tends to disprove, a j
contention of the Defendant that he did not submit false, fictitious or fraudulent travel vouchers for costs incurred l
between August 1, 1989 and September 30, 1990, as alleged in the f
Complaint in this proceeding.
4.
Produce each document supplying information that f
supports, tends to support, disproves or tends to disprove, a i
contention of the Defendant that he did not submit false claims I
i i
f
4, 4
<s t.
6 1
for overtime during Pay Periods 9, 10 and 11 in 1990, as alleged in the Complaint in this proceeding.
Respectfully submitted, NW v
R6dey)K.
D' avis Daryl M.
Shapiro U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of the General Counsel Mail Stop 15 B18 Washington, DC ' 20555 Tel. 301/504-1606 Attorneys for the NRC Dated:
May 24, 1993 i
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing
" INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS TO DEFENDANT" was served by hand delivery to the offices of counsel for Defendant, Timothy E.
Clarke, Esq., 5 North Adams Street, Rockvilla, MD 20850, this 24th day of May 1993.
lC
/
w+
Rogerg. Davis V
i l
y,
.a
, bt l
1 t
p i
?
L 4
-t i
ATTACHEMENT "C" I
t v
P t
Y P
i
+
' f e
6 3
I e
9 f
e 5
4
?
. b r
r F
a
?
I s
I f
m f.'
-u,~-
,,- -- - - - - + -
,n
1 5,.
O UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
)
IN THE MATTER OF THE COMPLAINT AGAINST
- LLYOD P.
ZERR Docket No. 93-01-PF I
Respondent ASLBP No. 93-673-Ol-PF
{
OBJECTIONS TO NRC DISCOVERY REOUEST Lloyd
- Zerr, by his attorney, Timothy E. Clarke, Esquire, respectfully objects to the discovery requests and states as follows:
1.
The Respondent objects to the deposition.
A deposition is redundant, uneccessary, and a violation of his constitutional rights.
2.
The date scheduled or the deposition, is a date on which counsel for the Respondent has a scheduled trial in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County, Maryland, the case of Jades Vending Corporation vs. the Technica1 Educat' ion Center, Inc..
3.
The Respondent objects to the Interrogatories, specifically questions 1, 2,
3, 4,
5, 6,
7, 8,
& 9.
f 4.
The Interrogatories are redundant.
5.
The answer to the interrogatories seeking names and l
documents depends upon the answer to Discovery Requests proposed to the NRC by the Respondent, and the Respondent relies upon the I
answers to provide additional information, and. cannot provide such additional information under any circumstances until the receipt of that discovery material.
i
Iry., -
1 6.
The Respondent objects to the Interrogatories on the basis of his constitutional privilege.
7.
The Respondent objects to the Requests for Production i
on constitutional and redundancy bases.
8.
The Respondent specifically objects to requests number 1,
2, 3,
& 4.
9.
The Respondent respectfully indicates that the NRC officials have met and discussed this matter with him previously.
Additionally, the Respondent has provided documents to the United States Government concerning this matter previously.
10.
The Respondent objects to the request for admission of facts as redundant and contrary to his constitutional rights.
11.
The Respondent specifically objects to number 1 - 149.
~
/ imotfly E.
C1arke 5 N. Adams Street Rockville, Maryland 20850 (301) 217-9379 C_ERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing Objections to NRC Discovery Request was mailed, this __ W day of June, 1993 to Roger
- Davis, United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C.
20555-0001.
imok6y E." Clarke
i UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Docket No. 93-01-PF In the Matter of Lloyd P.
Zerr ASLBP No. 93-673-01-PFC CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of the foregoing "NRC MOTION FOR DEPOSITION" and "NRC MOTION FOR DISCOVERY" in the above-captioned proceeding have been served upon the following persons by U.S. Mail first class, except as otherwise noted, this 10th day of June 1993:
Office of Commission Appellate Adjudication U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.
C.
20555 i
Roger K.
Davis, Esq.
Daryl M.
Shapiro, Esq.
Office of the General Counsel Mail Stop 15 B 18 U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.
C.
20555 Morton B. Margulies Chief Administrative Law Judge l
Mail Stop EW-439 U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.
C.
20555 i
Lloyd P.
Zerr 718 13th Street, N.E.
i Washington, D.
C.
20002 i
Timothy Clarke,-Esq.
5 North Adams Street i
Rockville, Maryland 20850 A b.
J6mes M.
Cutchin V i
I 1
i l