ML20009A167: Difference between revisions

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
 
(StriderTol Bot change)
 
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown)
Line 16: Line 16:


=Text=
=Text=
{{#Wiki_filter:}}
{{#Wiki_filter:j .                                                                    ,o
                                                                                  * :{ . .
.                                                                    o                ' o -.,            s c                            y
                                                                                  .m        4,
                                                                  .                            y        )
                                                                .-    .luL
                                                                      .        6 1981
                                                                                              ;."]      )
                                                                ; % g .. _ . . , , ,    .                \
U.S. NUCLEAR REGUUiTORY COMMISSIOtt    S gA    n,            17 f'9            [
                                                                  \t,          '
                                                                            -J4'                      ;.
In the matter of                                    Docket Nos.          O-329              i CPCo. Midland Plant                                                      50-330 Units I&2                                                                                    [
OM & OL                ;-
i e-    *[/ 'gf S                    3\          ;-
BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY F.LLCENSING APPEAL BO                              Q\      !-
                                                                                              .\
6/30/81                  E        G gS N7                r l      [
INTERVENOP RErUEST FOR RULING ON APPROPRIATE TIME y
3..
                                                                              #[&n g, / .. _ d\
APPEALS    ON DISCOVERY RULINGS & CONFEREMCE CALL RULINGS WHICEh DENY ECUAL RIGHTS TO ONE PARTY IN THE PROCEEDING Although the nuestions which I am about to raise in this recuest do not affect "the basic structure of the proceeding"'in the 'hervasive and unusual manner" that my 6/29/81 recuests do, I believe their con ilned effect is that of" seriously harm (ing) the public intrest" by Ilmiting the full participation of one                              b E
party in a proceeding and thereby limiting the open and fair                                  I consideration of information relevant to that proceeding.
Respecting and understanding your reluctance "to enter the discovery thicket",as expressed on p. 5 of the Feb. 20, 1981 Thornburg Ruling, I will ask these questions in the abstract.                                ;
If the answer to any of these cuestions is yes, I will provide the                          [
appropriate supporting evidence at your request.
Would this Appeal Board entertain an interlocutory appeal              05035 on any or' all of 'the following . issues?                                        /
1 8107090110 810630 3 PDR ADOCK 05000329-                                                                              -
O                PDR 3  v    +r  .
 
                                                                                    ~
          , /*
  =; . .
u j
l Sj 55
: 1) A double standard for discovery, stated in writing, which sets T..j different parameters for acceptable discovery for different.
m3 y                  parties.
a E) A ruling granting a motion for protective order without giving the party ruled against a chance to respond.to the motion.
: 3) A ruling of untim.11 ness on follow up discovery when that
  }                  untfaliness is due directly to the other parties failure to
~
answer initial discovery, and therefore unavoidable.
: 4) Denial of a request to see a document considered confidential by two parties.and relevant to this proceeding.
: 5) Denial of a recuest to be allowed to attend a meeting with URC Staff and Counsel and CPC Counsel, relevant to this proceeding.
: 6) Denial of a renuest for certain public documents from Applicant in the manner afforded all other parties.
Respectfully submitted, 4
},
cc: ASLAB Me:.rbe rs A5LE .'. embers Wm. P;too,NRC
!                    ?.f. Miller, CPCo.
Secretary, HRC Attorney Gen. Kelley}}

Latest revision as of 13:17, 17 February 2020

Request for Ruling on Appropriate Time for Appeals on Discovery & Conference Call Rulings Which Deny Equals Rights to One Party in Proceeding
ML20009A167
Person / Time
Site: Midland
Issue date: 06/30/1981
From: Stamiris B
AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED
To:
NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP)
References
ISSUANCES-OL, ISSUANCES-OM, NUDOCS 8107090110
Download: ML20009A167 (2)
v • d • e


Text

j . ,o

  • :{ . .

. o ' o -., s c y

.m 4,

. y )

.- .luL

. 6 1981

."] )
% g .. _ . . , , , . \

U.S. NUCLEAR REGUUiTORY COMMISSIOtt S gA n, 17 f'9 [

\t, '

-J4'  ;.

In the matter of Docket Nos. O-329 i CPCo. Midland Plant 50-330 Units I&2 [

OM & OL  ;-

i e- *[/ 'gf S 3\  ;-

BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY F.LLCENSING APPEAL BO Q\  !-

.\

6/30/81 E G gS N7 r l [

INTERVENOP RErUEST FOR RULING ON APPROPRIATE TIME y

3..

  1. [&n g, / .. _ d\

APPEALS ON DISCOVERY RULINGS & CONFEREMCE CALL RULINGS WHICEh DENY ECUAL RIGHTS TO ONE PARTY IN THE PROCEEDING Although the nuestions which I am about to raise in this recuest do not affect "the basic structure of the proceeding"'in the 'hervasive and unusual manner" that my 6/29/81 recuests do, I believe their con ilned effect is that of" seriously harm (ing) the public intrest" by Ilmiting the full participation of one b E

party in a proceeding and thereby limiting the open and fair I consideration of information relevant to that proceeding.

Respecting and understanding your reluctance "to enter the discovery thicket",as expressed on p. 5 of the Feb. 20, 1981 Thornburg Ruling, I will ask these questions in the abstract.  ;

If the answer to any of these cuestions is yes, I will provide the [

appropriate supporting evidence at your request.

Would this Appeal Board entertain an interlocutory appeal 05035 on any or' all of 'the following . issues? /

1 8107090110 810630 3 PDR ADOCK 05000329- -

O PDR 3 v +r .

~

, /*

=; . .

u j

l Sj 55

1) A double standard for discovery, stated in writing, which sets T..j different parameters for acceptable discovery for different.

m3 y parties.

a E) A ruling granting a motion for protective order without giving the party ruled against a chance to respond.to the motion.

3) A ruling of untim.11 ness on follow up discovery when that

} untfaliness is due directly to the other parties failure to

~

answer initial discovery, and therefore unavoidable.

4) Denial of a request to see a document considered confidential by two parties.and relevant to this proceeding.
5) Denial of a recuest to be allowed to attend a meeting with URC Staff and Counsel and CPC Counsel, relevant to this proceeding.
6) Denial of a renuest for certain public documents from Applicant in the manner afforded all other parties.

Respectfully submitted, 4

},

cc: ASLAB Me:.rbe rs A5LE .'. embers Wm. P;too,NRC

!  ?.f. Miller, CPCo.

Secretary, HRC Attorney Gen. Kelley

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20009A167&oldid=2475047"