ML20215C039

Requests Clarification of Util 860902 Position That Documents Sought in Case Document Production Request 6 Can & Have Been Withheld.Related Correspondence

ML20215C039
Person / Time
Site:	Comanche Peak
Issue date:	10/07/1986
From:	Roisman A Citizens Association for Sound Energy, TRIAL LAWYERS FOR PUBLIC JUSTICE, P.C.
To:	Eggeling W ROPES & GRAY, TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC CO. (TU ELECTRIC)
References
CON-#486-1023 OL, NUDOCS 8610100053
Download: ML20215C039 (2)

Text

Y een com.cononN96,

, . .' ' /./ #d TRIAL l.AWYERS FOR PuBuc JUSTICE. P.C.

COUNSERORS AT LAW [Q(g{}[p U NRC SulTE 611 2000 P STREET. NORTHWEST ANTHONY L ROISMAN EXECUTNL DIRECTOR WASHINGTON. D.C. 20036 *S6 5 0 $ $$ $9 ARTHUR BRYANT staff ATTORNEY OFFICE Or S .t i A.i y BituE cARDE 00CKETitiu & SE */fr.r' DIRLCTOR. ENMRONMENTAL BRANCH WHISTLEBLOWER PROJECT 8ARSARA PRATT OFFICE MANAGER KATHLLEN CUMBER 8ATCH 5tCRtTAnY October 7, 1986 William Eggeling, Esq.

Ropes & Gray 225 Franklin Street Boston, MA 02110 RE: Texas Utilities Electric Co. (Comanche Peak)

Docket Nos. 50-445, 446 -o&-

Dear Mr. Eggeling:

During the conference among you, Judge Block, and me on October 3, 1986, you represented that, based on a commitment made by TUEC in its pleading of September 2, 1986 (pp 22-3), there was no longer any dispute Detween CASE and TUEC as to Document Production Request No. 6 of CASE's June 27, 1986, discovery. As you know the Board relied on this representation in its Order of October 3, 1986; see footnote 2. In reviewing your cited reference, I see there is a potential ambiguity which I request that you clarify.

The relevant portions of the referenced pages of TUEC's September 2 filing (Applicants' Response to " CASE Response to Applicants' Motion For Protective Order Re 6/27/86 Discovery and Motion to Compel") read as follows ( id_. , pp. 2 2-3 ):

But in light of tne recently executed agreement regarding consensual modifications in the discovery process, Applicants have decided to make available12/ to CASS tne m inu tes, notes and memoranda sought by Request No. 6 -- notwitnstanoing that they are not the sub]ect of the instant motion.

12 Subject to the reservations set forth

in the Minority Owners responses, l

Appendices A-C, and without waiving Applicants' positin that these docu ments and the subject matter and fruits thereof are not properly the subject of such discovery.

Willica Eggeling Oct. 6, 1986 The " reservations set forth in the Minority owners responses" to which the commitment to produce documents is made subject include a claim of " attorney-client" privilege with respect to one document in Request No. 6 by Tex-La.

Is it TUEC's position that it can and has withheld from production any documents sought in Request No. 6? If so, there remains a dispute between CASE and TUEC on this matter. As you are well aware, CASE's Motion to Compel included, inter alia, the arguments that the attorney-client privilege could not be generally alleged as an objection but had to be specifically pled with the documents for which it is claimed listed, and that the objection should not be sustained. If no such objection is being raised, then to what was TUEC referring in footnote 12 by the phrase " Subject to the reservations set forth in the Minority owners responses"?

Your prompt attention to this matter will be much appreciated. When we next have a representative in Texas we will make arrangements to review the documents, assuming the above matter has been clarified and satisfactorily resolved, although if there are only a few documents it would be significantly more convenient if they were made available in Washington.

Sincerely, 8 Wh Anthon . Roisman cc: service list i

i j

f

- - - . - - , ,+..,-,.-,.,,,-,.--,-,---,,..n,-,m-,,._.,,,,-..,r,. -