ML20083N109
| ML20083N109 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 04/16/1984 |
| From: | Rolfe R HUNTON & WILLIAMS, LONG ISLAND LIGHTING CO. |
| To: | Lanpher L KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART, SUFFOLK COUNTY, NY |
| References | |
| OL-4, NUDOCS 8404190063 | |
| Download: ML20083N109 (4) | |
Text
.
G3Tn Ea^wLcornemeCu HUNTow Be WILg4giggs 707 East MAiw SincET P.bb h 1535 aooo ec===YLVAheA AVENUE. N. W.
Rtcuwown, VrmoswsA 20212 a..
.. avsaus j
....' 2,2."?foo.
'84 APR 18 A10:14
":".O"!.~.. T.' a f
ec6spwome aoa-... e.oo Tg L E PHON E 804-788-8200 veutz ?s.to.
333 ouTM o.amo avcNut TWX-7IO - 9 56 -0061
.. a v.ueLoine a o.ox so.
' ",^"J:'.1*:l^r.f.,".;^off
mg 0F SECREU.?)
"il";,", ",,',"l^.*ff.'"*3,
...a age 6 Viu mo.
,o...
...o....
.,'ia. "."o' " *,,,,.
Apri1 16, 1984 a ~gvpy c;,t< ~ ~ r s,.,c,= f,*.o.
- '*"l,,;;;// "o' o...e,o,,u~o.,...
BY TELECOPIER Lawrence Coe Lanpher, Esquire Kirkpatrick, Lockhart, Hill, Christopher 4 Phillips 1900 M Street, NW Washington,-DC '20036
.Re: Supplemental Low Power License Motion Docket No. 50-322-OL-4 (Low Power)
Dear Larry:
Since receiving the County's first. document requests.on April 12, I have' attempted to document LILCO's extraordinary
. efforts to afford the County the discovery it seeks, despite the
. lateness of the requests.
~A review of the. correspondence concerning the County's discovery requests will indicate several inaccuracies in your April 13 lettet.
So that there will be no misunderstandings, following is a point-by-point response to your-letter.
1.
Your' April 13 letter incorrectly relates that LILCO responded that-it would be impossible'to comply with the County's first document requests.
In fact, on April 13, LILCO made j
.available to the County'all'non-privilegod documents in its possession believed to be responsive to the County's first.
document requests.
LILCO also, produced.in New York documents-transported.from General Electric'sfoffices in California.
My 1etter. advised that LILCO might not be able to copy
~
=all requested documents-and produce them in your Washington office.
Therefore, LILCO made them available at.Shoreham'and Hicksville on April 12'(the documents at Melville were brought to
-Shoreham). LIn fact, those documents.Doug Scheidt requested Friday to be copied were copied.over the weekend'and Federal i
s HUNTON & WILLI AMS Lawrence Coe Lanpher, Esquire April 16, 1984 Page 2 Expressed to your office in Washington since the County agreed to bear all related expenses.
Similarly, LILCO will comply with the County's second document requests by producing documents on Monday, April 16.
In sum, compliance with the County's document requests is not " impossible" and, in fact, has been accomplished.
2.
LILCO does not agree with the County's repeated characterizations of the schedule for discovery and hearings incident to this proceeding as " unfair and unrealistic."
1 Reargument of that issue is not warranted at this point.
Nevertheless, it should be noted that the bulk of the factual material that you believe relevant to LILCO's motion is not new.
Only the GM EMD diesels and the 20 mw gas turbine at the site are new.
Certainly the County has previous'y scrutinized LILCO's off-site power system and its Chapter 15 safety analyses in determining issues to be raised before the Partial Initial Decision was rendered.
The County's professed unpreparedness to deal with the issues raised in LILCO's Supplemental Motion For Low Power License simply underscores the fact that the Board is affording the County an opportunity to participate in these hearings beyond that normally afforded an intervenor who, prior to being entitled to hearings, must demonstrate a basis for any contentions to be heard.
3.
You complain that it is impossible for the County.to complete " meaningful review" of the documents before the scheduled submission of testimony on April 20.
This complaint rings hollow-in at least two respects.
First, LILCO received no discovery requests from the County until mid morning on April 12, despite the service of LILCO's Supplemental Motion For Low Power License on March 20 and issuance of the Board's scheduling order on April 6.
Second, LILCO offered to make its documents available for the County's inspection and review beginning at
[
12:00 noon, Friday, April 13, and continuing around the clock ~
through the close of discovery on April 16.
This would have j
' afforded'the County an opportunity to continue its review of
~
documents' concurrently withLthe copying
- process.
Instead, the
. County chose to engage in a cursory review of LILCO's-documents by oneElawyer and two paralegals, from approximately 1:30 p.m. to approximately 5:00 p.m. on April 13 and further' chose'not to accept LILCO's: invitation to inspect documents over the weekend.
f' l
2 y
,r.i-
,,,y'.
,.-n.,,
, - ~, - -
,.,.e
, g
.u,_y i-,-,
.. -. -.~ -
- 5.,
.~,
,g-HUNTON & WILLI AMS Lawrence Coe Lanpher, Esquire l
April 16, 1984 Page 3 4
i I
4.
Your explanation as to the tardiness of the County's discovery requests also does not bear scrutiny.
In most respects, the County's first document requests merely reiterate, in slightly more detail, the items enumerated in Suffolk County's Preliminary Views on Scheduling Regarding LILCO's New Motion filed with the Board on March 26.
The requests do not describe specific technical documents, but instead refer to general categories of documents.
They are the type that could easily have been drafted based on LILCO's Supplemental Motion served on the County on March 20.
5.
With respect to the County's failure to identify or produce witnesses for deposition, the facts are simple.
On April 10, Tony Earley telecopied a letter to you and Fabian Palomino
- requesting the identity of the County's and State's witnesses, if any, and noticing the depositions of any such witnesses for April 13, 14 and 16.
In order to make necessary arrangements for such depositions, he requested that any such witnesses be identified by the close of business on Wednesday, April 11.
We received ru) response from the County or the State of New York to that inquiry.
When you and I spoke late in the afternoon on April 12, I asked whether the County _would identify and produce for deposition any witnesses before the close of discovery.
Your answer was "no."
Your April 13 letter reiterates the position expressed in
- our April 12 telephone conversation.
To date, the County has not identified any witnesses and remains unwilling to produce any witnesses for depositions before the close :of discovery.
As a result, LILCO will move to strike any testi, mony offered by the County or the State of New York.
In the event that you plan to offer testimony, however, please. notify us at the earliest possible moment of the witnesses'1 identities.-
6.
No further. discussion of the County's motives in' propounding discovery requests in the manner employed _would be fruitful or warranted.
Suffice it to.say that the imminence'and breadth.of the County's second. discovery requests, which were.
being prepared during our. April 12 telephone conversation, merited a more_ definite forewarning than the simple _ statement that the. County "might have" additional discovery requests in-the future.
As you know, LILCO is undertaking extraordinary efforts to afford the County the. discovery'it seeks ~within the tima frame L
Huwrox & WILLI AMS Lawrence Coe Lanpher, Esquire April 16, 1984 Page 4 set by the Board.
I hope in the future you will respond in a similar spirit of cooperation.
7.
You shonid not mistake the absence of relevance objections thus far for LILCO's agreement that all of the documents requested are relevant to the issues raised in LILCO's motion and outlined in the Board's April 6 order.
Simply, in order to afford the County the greatest possible opportunity for discovery, LILCO has produced documents quickly without time consuming discussions concerning their relevance.
8.
Finally, you allude to the fact that my April 12 letters were served on the Board.
The service of those letters on the Board and other parties was precipitated by the County's*
service on the Board of its first document requests and Doug Scheidt's cover letter.
You will' recall that you confirmed during our conversation late Thursday afternoon that your letter and document request had_been served on the Board.
Given the County's initiation of that procedure, it is important that the Board be provided a full and accurate picture of the discovery process.
Sincerely
- urs, Rb tM Ro fe 177/585 cc:
Service List
,--r
,,ww w