ML20079M415
| ML20079M415 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 01/25/1984 |
| From: | Doroshow J THREE MILE ISLAND ALERT |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8401270309 | |
| Download: ML20079M415 (4) | |
Text
I w,
b DOCMETED USHRC UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 14 JM 26 P234 Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board CFFICf 0F SEcpETAp 00CXETlHG & SEPVIC!
-In-the Matter of kf )
BRANCH
)
METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY
)
Docket No. 50-289
)
(Steam Generator Repair)
(Three ' Mile : Island Nuclear
.)
Station, Unit 1)
)
TMIA MOTION FOR ORDER _
COMPELLING DISCOVERY In its first set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents, TMIA requested "all documents or portions thereof which have been witheld from all parties, or f rom the intervenors, on the basis of the ' proprietary' or ' trade or commercial secret' information claimed to have been within the ' documents. "
(Document Request 22).
Even.before Licensee's response to discovery requests, TMIA had already-reviewed a number of relsvant Licensee documents with large portions excised due to a claimed " proprietary" interest.
TMIA has also noticed that the public document rooms in Harrrisburg and Washing-ton contain certain' documents which have been witheid from public disclosure-in their entirety.
In response to this request, one day before Licensee's response to TMIA interrogatories were due, Licensee proposed that members of TMIA who could have access to claimed " proprietary" documents sign a
" Proprietary Agreement" and be subject to a Protective Order which not on'ly,would require advance approval by B&W and Licensee of any TMIA member who might see these documents, but would demand absolute confi-
'dentiality even to the point of requiring in camera hearings.
4 8401270309 040125 h[])
DR ADOCK 05000 8
.. ~
. TMIA representa.tives would not at that time sign such an agree-
~
mont for two reasons.
First, there had been no cause shown for limiting discovery in that fashion.
Second, the restrictions of the proposed " Proprietary Agreement" would hinder TMIA's ability to do research, often conducted by relatively uninvolved TMIA members who at various times, with little or no notice, can offer research assis-tance.
Not only would the agreement impede such research efforts by the " advance approval" requirement, it would create an entirely unnecessary and extremely intimidating condition for TMIA members, msrely. average citizens, none of whom would have any motive whatsoever to use such information outs'ide this hearing context.
It is well settled that simply because a document reveals a trade secret, this is not of itself sufficient to make a document request objectionable.
V. D.
Anderson Co.
v.
Helena Cotton Oil Co.,
117 F.Supp. 932 (E.D. Ark. 1953).
Trade secrets are not absolutely privileged, and discovery of trade secrets will be required where the information sought is relevant and necessary for preparation of the case at trial.
Struthers Scientific and Internatinal Corp.
v.
General Foods Corp., 45 FRD 375, 378 (S.D. Tex. 1968).
See also, Covey Oil Co. v. Continental Oil Co. 340 F.2d 993 (10th Cir.)
cart. den. 380 US 964 (1965); A.H.
Robins Co.
v.
Fadely 299 F.2d 557 (5th Cir. 1962); Russ Stonier Inc.
v.
Droz Wood Co.,
52 FRD 232,
- 234, (E.D. Pa. 1971); International Nickel Co.
v.
Ford Motor Co. 15 FRD 3921 (S.D. NY 1954).
In this case, just a brief purusal of the titles of documents which Licensee has witheld in response to discovery requests indicates that TMIA will be unable to litigate the major issues in the case
3_
without seeing the information contained in these documents.
For example, of the 66 documents which Licensee has determined it must turn over to TMIA directly, 44, including many test reports, are being witheid soley on this ground.
Licensee has not objected to provision of any of these documents on relevancy grounds.
They are clearly necessary'for proper resolution of TMIA's contentions.
Moreover, we have no' idea how many documents are being witheld from-the discovery room on this ground, but again, Licensee has not objected to provision of these documents on relevancy grounds.
'Further, 10 CFR 52.740 requires that " good cause" be shown before a protective order may issue.
"Any protective order inhibiting liberal discovery must, issue only upon a specific showing that the information in question is of the nature that its disclosure should be restricted and that the party disclosing will indeed by harmed by disclosure."
Essex Wire Corp. v. Eastern Electric Sales Co.,
48 FRD 308 (E.D.'Pa 1969).
No such showing has been made in this case, parti-cularly in light of the highly unique nature of this corrosion mechanism and subsequent repair process, a commercial market for which is hard to ima.gine.
The " trade secret" priviledge is not absolute and the decision to restrict discovery rests with the Board.
Considering the interest of
- all parties in facilitating this hearing process, the fact this is not the type of case where insuring a party's abiltity to maintain the secrecy of some technical matter is of clear financial importance, such-as. an " unfair trade practice" or " patent" case, that TMIA members clearly have no interest in taking advantage of the alleged trade secrets-for economic gain, and the fact that no good cause has been
.... chown to l'imit discovery, TMIA moves the Board to compel Licensee to
' produce and disclose these documents to TMIA, without the restrictions of a protective order.
Respectfully, Three Mile Island Alert, Inc.
By t L MN DD hF anne Doroshow January 25, 1984 louise Bradford p
we
---e.e,-
-g.
---p
-,,,-,