ML20210A100: Difference between revisions
StriderTol (talk | contribs) StriderTol Bot insert |
StriderTol (talk | contribs) StriderTol Bot change |
||
| Line 18: | Line 18: | ||
=Text= | =Text= | ||
{{#Wiki_filter:gIQ.AlEDCm"r5POlgDEng( | {{#Wiki_filter:gIQ.AlEDCm"r5POlgDEng( | ||
ROPES & GRAY 225 FRANKLIN STREET | ROPES & GRAY 225 FRANKLIN STREET DOLMEILL | ||
'JSNRC BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS O2110 (617; 423-610 0 | |||
30 NENNEM PLAZA | .N PROveDENCE 30 NENNEM PLAZA TELEX NUMBER 940589 ROPGR ALOR g$N 1001 T fv-N TR N | ||
TELECOPIER ' don 526-0980 | PROvtDE NCE.R I O2903 TELEX NUMBER 951973 ROPE 5 GRAF 85N W A $ sg i N G TG N. D. C. 2 O O 3 7 dos; 521-6400 TELECOPi[RS (6171 423-2377 | ||
'6171 42 3 - 784 e m | |||
., 202 429-1600 TELECOPIER ' don 526-0980 IN TE R N AflON AL (617142 3-69 0 5 2, | |||
f,2 - | |||
9 SRANC" September 12, 1986 04CMTNUMER'y LJ4(hg | |||
" * ' ' f ITIL FAC... _ _ _._ _. | |||
Anthony Z. 4Roisman, Esquire Executive Director Trial Lawyers for Public Justice, P.C. | |||
2000 P Street, N.W. | 2000 P Street, N.W. | ||
Washington, DC 20036 | Washington, DC 20036 | ||
| Line 30: | Line 34: | ||
This will respond to your letter of September 9, 1986. | This will respond to your letter of September 9, 1986. | ||
We do not agree with your interpretaton of the Order referred to therein. | We do not agree with your interpretaton of the Order referred to therein. | ||
What the Order did was to sustain objections to the interrogatories. | What the Order did was to sustain objections to the interrogatories. | ||
In particular, with respect to Interrogatories Nos. 3-6, the Board ruled that your interrogatories were "too broadly drafted for this docket." We read this as sustaining at least one of the objections that we made and vitiating any obligation to respond to the filed interrogatories ex proprio vigore, without intending to indicate that allowance of the objections would preclude CASE's obtaining the information called for by the Board's Requests of August 8, 1986. | In addition, the Board also ruled that Interrogatory No. 2 was now moot. | ||
It therefore seems clear that CASE is entitled to no more than the information which the Board has sought in its August 8 Memorandum. That you will get at such time as it is available. | In particular, with respect to Interrogatories Nos. | ||
3-6, the Board ruled that your interrogatories were "too broadly drafted for this docket." | |||
We read this as sustaining at least one of the objections that we made and vitiating any obligation to respond to the filed interrogatories ex proprio vigore, without intending to indicate that allowance of the objections would preclude CASE's obtaining the information called for by the Board's Requests of August 8, 1986. | |||
It therefore seems clear that CASE is entitled to no more than the information which the Board has sought in its August 8 Memorandum. | |||
That you will get at such time as it is available. | |||
Otherwise, it is clear that our objections to CASE's discovery requests were sustained. | |||
Very truly yours, | Very truly yours, | ||
~s____~ | |||
C. | C. | ||
Thomas G. Dignan, Jr. | f, ---- | ||
TGDJr./ajp cc: | Thomas G. | ||
Dignan, Jr. | |||
TGDJr./ajp cc: | |||
Service List 8609170069 860912 PDR ADOCK 05000445 G | |||
PDR 17So3 1}} | |||
Latest revision as of 17:21, 6 December 2024
| ML20210A100 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 09/12/1986 |
| From: | Dignan T ROPES & GRAY |
| To: | Roisman A TRIAL LAWYERS FOR PUBLIC JUSTICE, P.C. |
| References | |
| CON-#386-715 OL, NUDOCS 8609170069 | |
| Download: ML20210A100 (1) | |
Text
gIQ.AlEDCm"r5POlgDEng(
ROPES & GRAY 225 FRANKLIN STREET DOLMEILL
'JSNRC BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS O2110 (617; 423-610 0
.N PROveDENCE 30 NENNEM PLAZA TELEX NUMBER 940589 ROPGR ALOR g$N 1001 T fv-N TR N
PROvtDE NCE.R I O2903 TELEX NUMBER 951973 ROPE 5 GRAF 85N W A $ sg i N G TG N. D. C. 2 O O 3 7 dos; 521-6400 TELECOPi[RS (6171 423-2377
'6171 42 3 - 784 e m
., 202 429-1600 TELECOPIER ' don 526-0980 IN TE R N AflON AL (617142 3-69 0 5 2,
f,2 -
9 SRANC" September 12, 1986 04CMTNUMER'y LJ4(hg
" * ' ' f ITIL FAC... _ _ _._ _.
Anthony Z. 4Roisman, Esquire Executive Director Trial Lawyers for Public Justice, P.C.
2000 P Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20036
Dear Tony:
This will respond to your letter of September 9, 1986.
We do not agree with your interpretaton of the Order referred to therein.
What the Order did was to sustain objections to the interrogatories.
In addition, the Board also ruled that Interrogatory No. 2 was now moot.
In particular, with respect to Interrogatories Nos.
3-6, the Board ruled that your interrogatories were "too broadly drafted for this docket."
We read this as sustaining at least one of the objections that we made and vitiating any obligation to respond to the filed interrogatories ex proprio vigore, without intending to indicate that allowance of the objections would preclude CASE's obtaining the information called for by the Board's Requests of August 8, 1986.
It therefore seems clear that CASE is entitled to no more than the information which the Board has sought in its August 8 Memorandum.
That you will get at such time as it is available.
Otherwise, it is clear that our objections to CASE's discovery requests were sustained.
Very truly yours,
~s____~
C.
f, ----
Thomas G.
Dignan, Jr.
TGDJr./ajp cc:
Service List 8609170069 860912 PDR ADOCK 05000445 G
PDR 17So3 1