ML20064C631

Motion for Protective Order from Further Response to Palmetto Alliance 820420 First Set of Interrogatories & Requests to Produce & Alliance 820927 Third Set of Interrogatories & Requests to Produce

ML20064C631
Person / Time
Site:	Catawba
Issue date:	12/31/1982
From:	Carr A DUKE POWER CO.
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
NUDOCS 8301040438
Download: ML20064C631 (4)

Text

-

'l y

~

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION-BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSIE YBbkRD ,

In the Matter of )

83 JM-3 N132

)

DUKE POWER COMPANY, et al. ) Docket Nos. 50-413

)

. eye 5 (Catawba Nuclear Station 7 ) icy 6-E~ ,0-414 Units 1 and 2) )

APPLICANTS' MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER Duke Power Company, et al. (Applicants), pursuant to 10 CFR 2.740(c), request the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board to issue an order to protect Applicant's from being requ' ired

to respond further to " Palmetto Alliance First Set of Inter-rogatories and Requests to Produce," filed April 20, 1992, and

" Palmetto Alliance Third Set of Interrogatories and Requests to Produce" (Regarding Contention 44) filed September 27, 1982.

Applicants have responded to Palmetto Alliance's Inter-rogatories by providing all information, not otherwise privileged, relevant to the subject matter of Palmetto Alliance's Con-tention 6, as rewritten by the Board, Contention 7 and Con-tention 44. Palmetto Alliance's Interrogatories, however, are overly broad and seek, in numerous instances, information which is either privileged or is not relevant'to the subject matter of these contentions, or should otherwise be protected from disclosure. Applicants have set out in their Responses to Palmetto Alliance's Interrogatories their objections to specific interrogatories and the grounds therefor, and incorporate such herein by reference.

[

• m 8301040438 821231 (,

PDR ADOCK 05000413 -:

G PDR

1 On the grounds set forth in their objections, Applicants move this Licensing Board to issue an order which will protect them from being required to provide information in response to Palmetto Alliance's Interrogatories beyond that already furnished. In particular, Applicants seek protection from disclosing the names, ad[resses, titles, phone numbers, dates of employment, and other fhformation sought with respect to Duke Power Company employees and former employees in Palmetto Alliance's Interrogatory 22 on Contention 6 and Interrogatory 16 on Contention 7. For Applicants to prQvide such information would require them to divulge information which is either privileged or is not relevant to the subject matter of these contentions, or should otherwise be protected from disclosure.

In any case, to produce information beyond that already l provided would subject App'licants to annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, undue burden or expense, would subject employees, or former employees, of Applicants to embarrassment as well as harassment by Palmetto Alliance, and would exp.ose Applicants to the possibility of civil litigation.

I Applicants are aware of their obligation, under normal circumstances, to provide a list of the specific documents, l correspondence, and communications as to which a claim of i

privilege is being asserted, and an explanation of why the privilege applies to each. (We note that the Board addressed this point to Palmetto Alliance in its December 22, 198 2 ' b~rder at p. 7). In its General Interrogatory 4, however, Palmetto l

l

Alliance has asked Applicants to provide it with documents and records of other communications regarding Applicants' legal position on Contentions 6, 7 and 44. Because Applicants submit that all such documents and records of communications (which reflect the mental impressions, views, legal theories

~

and legal strategies of Applicants' legal counsel, developed solely in anticipation of", and during, litigation), fall under the attorney work-product doctrine, Applicants have not included herein an itemized listing of documents with this objection reiterated for each document. M o r e o v.c.r , it would not have been feasible for Applicants to provide a complete list, with appropriate objections, in this pleading because communications and documents reflecting the bases for their positions on these contentions were ongoing at the time this Response was filed. However, if the Board believes that an itemized list is necessary, Applicants will undertake to prepare such a list and make it available by February 1, 1983.

Therefore, for the reasons set forth aboye, Applicants request that this Licensing Board issue an order which protects Applicants from providing any information beyond that already provided in " Applicants' Responses to ' Palmetto Alliance First Set of Interrogatories and Requests to Produce' and ' Palmetto Alliance Third Set of Interrogatories and Requests to Produce' s.

7 7

l 1

(Regarding Contention 44) l Respectfully submitted,

? '

Albert V. Carr, Jr.

~

. DUKE POWER COMPANY P. O. Box 33189 Charlotte, North Carolina 28242 (704) 373-2570 J. Michael McGarry, III Anne W. Cottingham DEBEVOISE & LIBERMAN 1200 Seventeenth Street, N.W.

Washington, D. C.

20036 (202) 857-9823 Attorneys for Duke Power Company, et al.

~

Decemtcr 31, 1982 e

4 O

l .

l l

2e

.