ML17209B117: Difference between revisions

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
(Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
Line 17: Line 17:


=Text=
=Text=
{{#Wiki_filter:ATTACHMENT5)981.i@Ega,Il.$.0lSLRlCfCRRTcmLamaczvQLHetaN"UNITEDSTATESDISTRICTCOURTCENTRALDISTRICTOFCALIFORNIA12141617CZTZESOFANAHELM',RIVERSIDE,BANNING,COLTONandAZUSA,CALIFORNIA,Plaintirfs,v~SOUTHERN.CALZFORNIAEDISONCOMPANY,:Defendant.)))))))))))).)NO.CV-78-810-PALORDERSPECIFYINGCERTAZNFACTSTOBEWITHOUT,SUBSTANTIALCONTROVEHSY,ANDREQUIRINGFURTHERBRIEFINGONOTHERISSUES2026.27OnFebruary3,1981,plaintiffsfiledaMotiontoAdjudicateCertainFacts,toLimittheIssuestobe.Tried,andtoLimit:theScopeofDiscovery.Aftercarefulconsiderationofthismotion,thememorandaandevidencesubmittedinsupoortandinopoos'iontothemotion,theargumentsorcounselforallparties,andtheentirerecordinthisaction,theCourtherebyOrdersasfollows:1.AlthoughthismotionischaracterizedbyplaintiffsasaRule16motion,theCourtf'ndsthatplaintiffs'otionshallbetreatedasamotionunderRule56oftheFederalRulesorCivilProcedureeitherforsummaryjudgmentorfor8yospS015~
{{#Wiki_filter:ATTACHMENT 5)981.i@Ega,Il.$.0lSLRlCfCRRTcmLamaczvQLHetaN"UNITEDSTATESDISTRICTCOURTCENTRALDISTRICTOFCALIFORNIA 12141617CZTZESOFANAHELM',
I23'012I316171920212728anorder-specifyingcertainfactstobewithoutsubstantialcontroversy.TheCourtfindsthatthedefendantisnotprejudicedbythisrecharacterization.Thedefendanthasfullyargued,alloftheissuespresentedinthismotion,bothorallyandinwriting,andhassubmittedvoluminousevidenceandaffidavitsinsupportofitsposition.2.Thefollowingfactsarewithoutsubstantialcontro-versy,andshallbedeemedestablishedforthepurposesof'hisaction:I(a)BPAandotherPQfentitieshaveha'd,andcontinue=tohave,low-costbulkpowe.availableforsaletopurchasersoutsidethePNMarea.SeeMoodytestimony,atpp.IZand16;(b)TheCities,aspublicentities,haveafederalstatutorypreferencetoBPAbulkpowersurplusenergyandsurpluspeakingcapacitymarketedoutsidethePNMarea.16U.S.C.5832(c)(a);16U.S.C.5837a;(c)TransmissionfacilitiescontrolledbyEdisonandothers,knownasthePacificIntertie("Intertie"),extendfromthePNMbulkpowermarketandconnecttoEdison'selectricsystem.SeeHoodytestimony,atpp.2~3y(d)AccesstotheintertieisnecessaryinorderforthecitiestoengageinbulkpowertransactionswiththeBPAorotherPNUentities.SeePlaintiffs'xhibit~P6;(e)Certaincontractsente.dintobyEdisonandothersgove.naccesstotheZntertieandgiveEdison 101215161719.2026andothersthepowertoprecludetheCitiesfromobtainingaccesstotheintertie,subjecttotheultimateauthorityoftheFERC.SeePlaintiffs'xhibitsr'7-11;16U.S.C.5824i;(f)ThecitiesofAnaheimandRiversidehaverequesteddirectaccesstotheXnertie.ThecitiesofAzusa,Banning,andColtonhavenot.SeePlaintiffs'xhibitsN13-16;(g)QnAugust'8,1973andSeptemberll,1973,P.G.4E.informedthecitiesofAnaheimandRiversidethatitwouldnotprovidethem,directaccesstotheIntertie.SeePlaintiffs'xhibitiP6and20;(h)EdisonhasinformedthecitIesofAnaheimandRiversidethatitwillnotprovidethemdirectaccesstotheIntertie.SeePlaintiffs'xhibitsik21;24;and(i)TheCitiesaredependentuponEdisonfort,transmissionofbulkpowersupplies.Seep.48ofEdison'smemoranduminopposit'on.3.Thefollowingprinciplesoflawareapplicabletothisaction:(a)Thetransmiss'onfacilitiesknownasthePacificintertiecannotpracticablybeduplicatdbyplaintiffs.Consequently,theintertieisessentialtothetransmissionofbulkpowerfromthePNMareatoplaintiffs.SeeAssociatedPressv.UnitedStates,326U.S.1,138n.10(1945);UnitedStatesv.TerminalHsilrasaissaaistian,22tU.S.383,t09(1912);Bsai.tv.Pro-Football,570F.2d982,992(D.C;Cir.1977).  
RIVERSIDE, BANNING,COLTONandAZUSA,CALIFORNIA, Plaintirfs,v~SOUTHERN.
(b)PerserulesozantitrustlavareappropriateIonlywhentheyrelatetoconductthatismanifestlyanticompetitive.SeeNorthernPacizicR.Co.v.UnitedStates,356U.S.1,5(1958).(c)Plaintiffshavefailedtodemonstratethatthedefendant'srestzictionsonaccesstotheintertiesystemwarrantsanez'erule.(d)Zn.Blonder-TonueLaboratories,Znc.v.UniversitofIllinois,402U.S..313,329(1971),theSupremeCourtabandonedtherequirementofmutualityofpartiesvhenapplyingtheprincipleof'ollateralestoppandheldthatestoppelvillbeappliedunlesstheparty,candemonstratethat,itdidnothaveafullandfairoppoztuni,ty,procedurally,,substantively,andevidentialtolitigatetheissue.soughttobeestoppedinthepriorcase.Subsequently,in.ParklaneHosierCo.v.Shave,t39U.S'.322(197g),theSupremecourtheldthatthetrialcourtisgrantedbroaddiscretionindeterminiwhetherornottoapplythedoctrineofcollatez'alestoppel.Nhenmakingsucha.determination;thetrialcourtshouldconside.>>(i)theincentivetotullylit'tatiinthepriorf'orum;(2)vhetheztheoriorjudgmentisinconsistentwithotherdecision;and(3)theproceduzallimitationsonotherproceedings.AlsoseeUnitedStatesv.TTRaonier,627F.2d996(9thCir.1980).(e)Collateralestoppelmaybe'nvokedtoforeclosI'elitigationof'ssuesalreadydeterminedinanadminis-trativeproceeding.UnitedStatesv.UtahConstruction I2C.,3))U.).39),))'-22)!96));PTransportSstemsv.Chauffeursetc.,t>6p.2n106t,1066(9thCir.1971).10131617192021p7(f)EdisoniscollaterallyestoppedfromdisputingthefollowingfactualissuesdeterminedinFERCproceedings:(i.)TheCitiesandEdisonareinactual,andpotentialcompetitionattheretaillevel.SeePlaintiffs,'xhibits027atp.886,andlP28atpp.-896-98.(ii)Theaporopriateratesto'omparetodeterminewhetherEdisonsubjectedtheCitiestounlawfulmonooolypricing("pricesqueeze")between'February1,.1976andAugust.16,1979aretheA-8retailratesoaid.byEdison'slargeindustrialcustomersandEdison'sR-2wholesalerateoaidbyresalecustomers,suchas0heCities.SeePlaintifexhibitsiP27a.tp.874,andiP28ato.898.(iii.)Edison'sR-2wholesalerat,paidbytheCities,exceededtheA-8rtailrates.paidbyIEdison'slargeindustrialcustomersduringtheperiodbetweenFebruary1,.1976andAugust16,1979.SeePlaintiffs'xhibits~~27atpo.875,882,andIP28atp.898.Astothesefacts,Edisonhadeveryincentiveto'ullylitigatethembeforetheAdministrativeLawJudgeandtheFERC.Edisonwasreoresentedbycounsel,oermittedmassivediscovery,allowedtooresentdocumentaryeviden 10141920.2122I23'62728andtestimony,permittedtocrossexaminewitnesses,permittedtoobjecttoevidentiarymaterial,andingeneral.'ivenafull,andfairopportunitytolitigatethesefactualissues.Moreover,EdisonwaspermittedtoappealtheAdministrativeLawJudge'sdecision,totheFERContwooccasions,with.theopportunitytoraiseeachoftheobjectionspresentlyra'sedinthisCourt.TheFERC,expresslyfound-thateachofthesefindings~asnecessarytotheproceedingsandrejectedEdison's.contentionthatthefindingsweresuperfluous.SeePlaintiffs'xhibit~P27atpp.885-86.TheFERCalsoindicatedthatthe-findingsastotheseissuesarefinal,regardlessofthedispositionoffurtherhearingsSeePlaintiffs'xhibitfP28atp.898.(g)At,thistime,the.plaintiffhasfailed,todemonstratethattheFERChasreachedafinaldecisiononwhetherEdison'sH-2wholesalerate,paidbytheCitiesbetweenFebruary1,1976andAugust16,1979,wascost-justified.SeePlaintiffs'xhibit/r'28atp.899.Collateralestoppel,therefore,shallnotbeappliedatthepresenttimetothisfactualissue.Plaintiffs'equestforanorderlim'tingdiscovery*isdeniedatthistimewithoutprejudice.TheCourtfindsthatinlightofthefindingsabove,therequestedrestrictioupondiscoveryma'ybeunnecessary.Thepartiesarereminded,however,oftherequirementsofHule26oftheFederalRulesofCivilProceduretolimitdiscoverytomattersrelevanttothesubjectmatterinvolvedinthepend'ngaction,andto 1012informationthatappearsreasonablycalculatedtoleadtothediscoveryofadmissibleevidence.5..PursuanttoRule16oftheFederalRulesofCivilProcedure,theCourtherebydirectstheattorneysforbothpartiestoappearoni4fonday,July20,1981,at10:00a.m.inCourtroom12foraconferencetoconsiderthesimplificationoftheissues.inthiscase.Prior-tothisconference,onorbeforeJune15,1981,plaintiffsshallsubmitabrieffullyexaminingwhetherornotthefollowingissuesareproperlyissuesfortrialinthiscase:(a)Theimpactofgovernmentregulationofdefen-dant'sactivitiesandratesuponplaintiffs'laimsinthisaction;161719202127(b)The'impactofCongressionalorFERCencourage-mentofthe.presentintertiesystemon'laintiff'sclaim;.(c)Therelevanceof'onspiracytheoryundertheantitrustlaws,inlightofthecontractsenteredintobyEdison-andotherswithrespecttotheintertie;(d)Therelevanceoipriorsettlements'rZOAsenteredintobetweenplaint'iffsanddefendant,onplaintiffs'resentclaims;(e)TheimpactorrelevanceoxPURPAuponplaintifclaims;(f)Theconsequences,particularlywithrespecttostanding,ofAzusa,Banning,andColton'sfailuretorequestdirectaccess-tothe.ntertie;and(g)Therelevanceorfactsconcerningfuture I23availabilityofbulkpowersourcesoutsidethePNMtoplaintiffs.Plaint'fs'riefshallalsoaddressthequestionofabifurcationinthisactionoftheissuesofliabilityanddamages.Defendantmaythensubmitabriefinresponsetoplaintiffs'.brief,onorbeforeJuly3,1981.10ZTZSSOORDERED.ZTiSFURTHERORDEREDthattheClerkshallserve,byUnited.Statesmail,copiesofthisOrderoncounselforplaintiffsandcounselfordefendantinthisaction.Dated:May18,19811617Maom.~ucasUnitedtateDistrictJudge1927 UNITEDSTATESNUCLEARREGULATORYCOMMISSIONBEFORETHEATOMICSAFETYANDLICENSINGBOARDIntheMatterof))FloridaPower6LightCompany))(St.LucieNuclearPlant,UnitNo.2))CERTIFICATEOFSERVICEDocketNo.50-389AIherebycertifythatcopiesofthe"MotiontoEstablishProcedures,ForaDeclarationThataSituationInconsistentwiththeAntitrustLawsPresentlyExistsandForRelatedRelief"withAttachments1-5,AppendicesAandB,and'indices(withoutdocuments)ofAppendicesCthroughI,havebeenservedonthefollowingbyhanddelivery(*)orbydeposit,intheU.S.Mail,firstclass,postageprepaid,this27thdayofMay,1981.IherebycertifythatcopiesofAppendicesCthroughI(withdocuments)willbeservedonallparties,includingtheNuclearRegulatoryCommission,byhanddelivery(*)orbydepositintheU.S.Mail,firstclass,postageprepaid,onthe28thdayofMay,1981.*ChaseStephens,ChiefDocketingSServiceSectionNuclearRegulatoryCommissionWashington,D.C.20555IvanW-Smith,EsquireChairmanAtomicSafetySLicensingBoardNuclearRegulatoryCommissionWashington,D.C.20555RobertM.Lazo,EsquireAtomicSafetySLicensingBoardNuclearRegulatoryCommissionWashington,D.C.20555MichaelA.Duggan,EsquireCollegeofBusinessAdministrationUniversityofTexasAustin,Texas78712ElizabethS.Bowers,ChairmanAtomicSafety6LicensingBoardNuclearRegulatoryCommissionWashington;D.C.20555'eromeSaltzman,ChiefAntitrust6IndemnityGroupNuclearRegulatoryCommissionWashington,D.C.20555RichardS.Salzman,EsquireAtomicSafety6LicensingBoardPanelNuclearRegulatoryCommissionWashington,D.C.20555WilliamD.Paton,EsquireA.P.Hodgdon,EsquireCounselforNRCStaffNuclearRegulatoryCommissionWashington,D.C.20555J.A.Bouknight,'r.Lowenstein,Newman,.ReisEAxelrad1025ConnecticutAvenue,N.W.Washington,D.C.20036JosephRutberg,EsquireLeeScottDewey,EsquireFredricChanania,EsquireCounselforNRCStaffNuclearRegulatoryCommissionWashington,D.C.20555 Dr.PeterA.MorrisAtomicSafety&LicensingBoardPanelNuclearRegulatoryCommissionWashington,D.C.20555Dr.OscarH.ParisAtomicSafety&LicensingBoardPanelNuclearRegulatoryCommissionWashington,D.C.20555WilliamH.Chandler,EsquireChandler,O'Neal,Avera,Gray&StriplingP.O.Drawer0Gainesville,Florida32602JanetUrban,EsquireDepartmentofJusticeP.0,Box14141Washington,D.C.20044IDonaldA.Kaplan,EsquireRobertFabrikant,EsquireAntitrustDivisionDepartmentofJusticeWashington,D.C.20530HerbertDym,EsquireCovington&Burling88816thStreet,N.W.Washington,D.C.20006ThomasGurney,Sr.,Esquire203NorthMagnoliaAvenueOrlando,Florida32802WilliamC.Wise,Esquire120018thStreetSuite500Washington,D.C.20036CharlesR.P.Brown,EsquireBrown,Paxton&Williams301,South6thStreet.P.O.Box1418FortPierce,Florida33450HutchinsonIslandCoalitionc/oHelenSheaWells93ElMarDriveJensenBeach,Florida33457GeorgeR.Kucik,EsquireMareGary,EsquireEllenE.SwardArent,Fox,Kintner,Plotkin&Kahn1815HStreet,N.W.Washington,D.C.20006Robert,A.JablonAlanJ.RothDanielGuttmanAttorneysfortheGainesvilleRegionalUtilities,theLakeWorthUtilitiesAuthority,theUtilitiesCommissionofNewSmyrnaBeach,theSebringUtilitiesCommission,'ndtheCitiesofAlachua,Bartow,FortMeade,KeyWest,LakeHelen,MountDora,Newberry,St.Cloud,andTallahassee,FloridaandtheFloridaMunicipalUtilitiesAssociationBY}}
CALZFORNIA EDISONCOMPANY,:
Defendant.
)))))))))))).)NO.CV-78-810-PALORDERSPECIFYING CERTAZNFACTSTOBEWITHOUT,SUBSTANTIAL CONTROVEHSY, ANDREQUIRING FURTHERBRIEFINGONOTHERISSUES2026.27OnFebruary3,1981,plaintiffs filedaMotiontoAdjudicate CertainFacts,toLimittheIssuestobe.Tried,andtoLimit:theScopeofDiscovery.
Aftercarefulconsideration ofthismotion,thememoranda andevidencesubmitted insupoortandinopoos'ion tothemotion,thearguments orcounselforallparties,andtheentirerecordinthisaction,theCourtherebyOrdersasfollows:1.Althoughthismotionischaracterized byplaintiffs asaRule16motion,theCourtf'ndsthatplaintiffs'otion shallbetreatedasamotionunderRule56oftheFederalRulesorCivilProcedure eitherforsummaryjudgmentorfor8yospS015~
I23'012I316171920212728anorder-specifying certainfactstobewithoutsubstantial controversy.
TheCourtfindsthatthedefendant isnotprejudiced bythisrecharacterization.
Thedefendant hasfullyargued,alloftheissuespresented inthismotion,bothorallyandinwriting,andhassubmitted voluminous evidenceandaffidavits insupportofitsposition.
2.Thefollowing factsarewithoutsubstantial contro-versy,andshallbedeemedestablished forthepurposesof'hisaction:I(a)BPAandotherPQfentitieshaveha'd,andcontinue=
tohave,low-costbulkpowe.available forsaletopurchasers outsidethePNMarea.SeeMoodytestimony, atpp.IZand16;(b)TheCities,aspublicentities, haveafederalstatutory preference toBPAbulkpowersurplusenergyandsurpluspeakingcapacitymarketedoutsidethePNMarea.16U.S.C.5832(c)(a);
16U.S.C.5837a;(c)Transmission facilities controlled byEdisonandothers,knownasthePacificIntertie("Intertie"),
extendfromthePNMbulkpowermarketandconnecttoEdison'selectricsystem.SeeHoodytestimony, atpp.2~3y(d)Accesstotheintertieisnecessary inorderforthecitiestoengageinbulkpowertransactions withtheBPAorotherPNUentities.
SeePlaintiffs'xhibit
~P6;(e)Certaincontracts ente.dintobyEdisonandothersgove.naccesstotheZntertieandgiveEdison 101215161719.2026andothersthepowertoprecludetheCitiesfromobtaining accesstotheintertie, subjecttotheultimateauthority oftheFERC.SeePlaintiffs'xhibits r'7-11;16U.S.C.5824i;(f)ThecitiesofAnaheimandRiverside haverequested directaccesstotheXnertie.ThecitiesofAzusa,Banning,andColtonhavenot.SeePlaintiffs'xhibits N13-16;(g)QnAugust'8, 1973andSeptember ll,1973,P.G.4E.informedthecitiesofAnaheimandRiversidethatitwouldnotprovidethem,directaccesstotheIntertie.
SeePlaintiffs'xhibit iP6and20;(h)EdisonhasinformedthecitIesofAnaheimandRiversidethatitwillnotprovidethemdirectaccesstotheIntertie.
SeePlaintiffs'xhibits ik21;24;and(i)TheCitiesaredependent uponEdisonfort,transmission ofbulkpowersupplies.
Seep.48ofEdison'smemorandum inopposit'on.
3.Thefollowing principles oflawareapplicable tothisaction:(a)Thetransmiss'on facilities knownasthePacificintertiecannotpracticably beduplicatdbyplaintiffs.
Consequently, theintertieisessential tothetransmission ofbulkpowerfromthePNMareatoplaintiffs.
SeeAssociated Pressv.UnitedStates,326U.S.1,138n.10(1945);UnitedStatesv.TerminalHsilrasaissaaistian, 22tU.S.383,t09(1912);Bsai.tv.Pro-Football, 570F.2d982,992(D.C;Cir.1977).  
(b)Perserulesozantitrust lavareappropriate Ionlywhentheyrelatetoconductthatismanifestly anticompetitive.
SeeNorthernPacizicR.Co.v.UnitedStates,356U.S.1,5(1958).(c)Plaintiffs havefailedtodemonstrate thatthedefendant's restzictions onaccesstotheintertiesystemwarrantsanez'erule.(d)Zn.Blonder-TonueLaboratories, Znc.v.Universit ofIllinois, 402U.S..313,329(1971),theSupremeCourtabandoned therequirement ofmutuality ofpartiesvhenapplyingtheprinciple of'ollateral estoppandheldthatestoppelvillbeappliedunlesstheparty,candemonstrate that,itdidnothaveafullandfairoppoztuni,ty,procedurally,,
substantively, andevidential tolitigatetheissue.soughttobeestoppedinthepriorcase.Subsequently, in.ParklaneHosierCo.v.Shave,t39U.S'.322(197g),theSupremecourtheldthatthetrialcourtisgrantedbroaddiscretion indetermini whetherornottoapplythedoctrineofcollatez'al estoppel.
Nhenmakingsucha.determination; thetrialcourtshouldconside.>>
(i)theincentive totullylit'tatiinthepriorf'orum;(2)vhetheztheoriorjudgmentisinconsistent withotherdecision; and(3)theproceduzallimitations onotherproceedings.
AlsoseeUnitedStatesv.TTRaonier,627F.2d996(9thCir.1980).(e)Collateral estoppelmaybe'nvokedtoforeclosI'elitigation of'ssuesalreadydetermined inanadminis-trativeproceeding.
UnitedStatesv.UtahConstruction I2C.,3))U.).39),))'-22)!96));PTransport Sstemsv.Chauffeurs etc.,t>6p.2n106t,1066(9thCir.1971).10131617192021p7(f)Edisoniscollaterally estoppedfromdisputing thefollowing factualissuesdetermined inFERCproceedings:
(i.)TheCitiesandEdisonareinactual,andpotential competition attheretaillevel.SeePlaintiffs,'xhibits 027atp.886,andlP28atpp.-896-98.(ii)Theaporopriate ratesto'ompare todetermine whetherEdisonsubjected theCitiestounlawfulmonooolypricing("pricesqueeze")
between'February 1,.1976andAugust.16, 1979aretheA-8retailratesoaid.byEdison'slargeindustrial customers andEdison'sR-2wholesale rateoaidbyresalecustomers, suchas0heCities.SeePlaintifexhibitsiP27a.tp.874,andiP28ato.898.(iii.)Edison'sR-2wholesale rat,paidbytheCities,exceededtheA-8rtailrates.paidbyIEdison'slargeindustrial customers duringtheperiodbetweenFebruary1,.1976andAugust16,1979.SeePlaintiffs'xhibits
~~27atpo.875,882,andIP28atp.898.Astothesefacts,Edisonhadeveryincentive to'ullylitigatethembeforetheAdministr ativeLawJudgeandtheFERC.Edisonwasreoresented bycounsel,oermitted massivediscovery, allowedtooresentdocumentary eviden 10141920.2122I23'62728andtestimony, permitted tocrossexaminewitnesses, permitted toobjecttoevidentiary material,andingeneral.'iven afull,andfairopportunity tolitigatethesefactualissues.Moreover, Edisonwaspermitted toappealtheAdministrative LawJudge'sdecision, totheFERContwooccasions, with.theopportunity toraiseeachoftheobjections presently ra'sedinthisCourt.TheFERC,expressly found-that eachofthesefindings~asnecessary totheproceedings andrejectedEdison's.
contention thatthefindingsweresuperfluous.
SeePlaintiffs'xhibit
~P27atpp.885-86.TheFERCalsoindicated thatthe-findingsastotheseissuesarefinal,regardless ofthedisposition offurtherhearingsSeePlaintiffs'xhibitfP28atp.898.(g)At,thistime,the.plaintiff hasfailed,todemonstrate thattheFERChasreachedafinaldecisiononwhetherEdison'sH-2wholesale rate,paidbytheCitiesbetweenFebruary1,1976andAugust16,1979,wascost-justified.
SeePlaintiffs'xhibit
/r'28atp.899.Collateral
: estoppel, therefore, shallnotbeappliedatthepresenttimetothisfactualissue.Plaintiffs'equest foranorderlim'tingdiscovery*isdeniedatthistimewithoutprejudice.
TheCourtfindsthatinlightofthefindingsabove,therequested restrictio upondiscovery ma'ybeunnecessary.
Thepartiesarereminded, however,oftherequirements ofHule26oftheFederalRulesofCivilProcedure tolimitdiscovery tomattersrelevanttothesubjectmatterinvolvedinthepend'ngaction,andto 1012information thatappearsreasonably calculated toleadtothediscovery ofadmissible evidence.
5..PursuanttoRule16oftheFederalRulesofCivilProcedure, theCourtherebydirectstheattorneys forbothpartiestoappearoni4fonday, July20,1981,at10:00a.m.inCourtroom 12foraconference toconsiderthesimplification oftheissues.inthiscase.Prior-tothisconference, onorbeforeJune15,1981,plaintiffs shallsubmitabrieffullyexamining whetherornotthefollowing issuesareproperlyissuesfortrialinthiscase:(a)Theimpactofgovernment regulation ofdefen-dant'sactivities andratesuponplaintiffs'laims inthisaction;161719202127(b)The'impact ofCongressional orFERCencourage-mentofthe.presentintertiesystemon'laintiff's claim;.(c)Therelevance of'onspiracy theoryundertheantitrust laws,inlightofthecontracts enteredintobyEdison-and otherswithrespecttotheintertie; (d)Therelevance oipriorsettlements'r ZOAsenteredintobetweenplaint'iffs anddefendant, onplaintiffs'resent claims;(e)Theimpactorrelevance oxPURPAuponplaintifclaims;(f)Theconsequences, particular lywithrespecttostanding, ofAzusa,Banning,andColton'sfailuretorequestdirectaccess-to the.ntertie;and(g)Therelevance orfactsconcerning future I23availability ofbulkpowersourcesoutsidethePNMtoplaintiffs.
Plaint'fs'rief shallalsoaddressthequestionofabifurcation inthisactionoftheissuesofliability anddamages.Defendant maythensubmitabriefinresponsetoplaintiffs'.
brief,onorbeforeJuly3,1981.10ZTZSSOORDERED.ZTiSFURTHERORDEREDthattheClerkshallserve,byUnited.Statesmail,copiesofthisOrderoncounselforplaintiffs andcounselfordefendant inthisaction.Dated:May18,19811617Maom.~ucasUnitedtateDistrictJudge1927 UNITEDSTATESNUCLEARREGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORETHEATOMICSAFETYANDLICENSING BOARDIntheMatterof))FloridaPower6LightCompany))(St.LucieNuclearPlant,UnitNo.2))CERTIFICATE OFSERVICEDocketNo.50-389AIherebycertifythatcopiesofthe"MotiontoEstablish Procedures, ForaDeclaration ThataSituation Inconsistent withtheAntitrust LawsPresently ExistsandForRelatedRelief"withAttachments 1-5,Appendices AandB,and'indices(withoutdocuments) ofAppendices CthroughI,havebeenservedonthefollowing byhanddelivery(*)orbydeposit,intheU.S.Mail,firstclass,postageprepaid,this27thdayofMay,1981.IherebycertifythatcopiesofAppendices CthroughI(withdocuments) willbeservedonallparties,including theNuclearRegulatory Commission, byhanddelivery(*)orbydepositintheU.S.Mail,firstclass,postageprepaid,onthe28thdayofMay,1981.*ChaseStephens, ChiefDocketing SServiceSectionNuclearRegulatory Commission Washington, D.C.20555IvanW-Smith,EsquireChairmanAtomicSafetySLicensing BoardNuclearRegulatory Commission Washington, D.C.20555RobertM.Lazo,EsquireAtomicSafetySLicensing BoardNuclearRegulatory Commission Washington, D.C.20555MichaelA.Duggan,EsquireCollegeofBusinessAdministration University ofTexasAustin,Texas78712Elizabeth S.Bowers,ChairmanAtomicSafety6Licensing BoardNuclearRegulatory Commission Washington; D.C.20555'eromeSaltzman, ChiefAntitrust 6Indemnity GroupNuclearRegulatory Commission Washington, D.C.20555RichardS.Salzman,EsquireAtomicSafety6Licensing BoardPanelNuclearRegulatory Commission Washington, D.C.20555WilliamD.Paton,EsquireA.P.Hodgdon,EsquireCounselforNRCStaffNuclearRegulatory Commission Washington, D.C.20555J.A.Bouknight,'r.
Lowenstein, Newman,.ReisEAxelrad1025Connecticut Avenue,N.W.Washington, D.C.20036JosephRutberg,EsquireLeeScottDewey,EsquireFredricChanania, EsquireCounselforNRCStaffNuclearRegulatory Commission Washington, D.C.20555 Dr.PeterA.MorrisAtomicSafety&Licensing BoardPanelNuclearRegulatory Commission Washington, D.C.20555Dr.OscarH.ParisAtomicSafety&Licensing BoardPanelNuclearRegulatory Commission Washington, D.C.20555WilliamH.Chandler, EsquireChandler, O'Neal,Avera,Gray&Stripling P.O.Drawer0Gainesville, Florida32602JanetUrban,EsquireDepartment ofJusticeP.0,Box14141Washington, D.C.20044IDonaldA.Kaplan,EsquireRobertFabrikant, EsquireAntitrust DivisionDepartment ofJusticeWashington, D.C.20530HerbertDym,EsquireCovington
&Burling88816thStreet,N.W.Washington, D.C.20006ThomasGurney,Sr.,Esquire203NorthMagnoliaAvenueOrlando,Florida32802WilliamC.Wise,Esquire120018thStreetSuite500Washington, D.C.20036CharlesR.P.Brown,EsquireBrown,Paxton&Williams301,South 6thStreet.P.O.Box1418FortPierce,Florida33450Hutchinson IslandCoalition c/oHelenSheaWells93ElMarDriveJensenBeach,Florida33457GeorgeR.Kucik,EsquireMareGary,EsquireEllenE.SwardArent,Fox,Kintner,Plotkin&Kahn1815HStreet,N.W.Washington, D.C.20006Robert,A.JablonAlanJ.RothDanielGuttmanAttorneys fortheGainesville RegionalUtilities, theLakeWorthUtilities Authority, theUtilities Commission ofNewSmyrnaBeach,theSebringUtilities Commission,'nd theCitiesofAlachua,Bartow,FortMeade,KeyWest,LakeHelen,MountDora,Newberry, St.Cloud,andTallahassee, FloridaandtheFloridaMunicipal Utilities Association BY}}

Revision as of 18:00, 29 June 2018

Order That Listed Facts Are W/O Substantial Controversy & Are Deemed Established.Listed Principals of Law Applicable to Proceeding.Plaintiff Request for Order Limiting Discovery Denied W/O Prejudice.Certificate of Svc Encl
ML17209B117
Person / Time
Site: Saint Lucie NextEra Energy icon.png
Issue date: 05/18/1981
From: LUCAS M M
U.S. DISTRICT COURT, CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
To:
Shared Package
ML17209B115 List:
References
CV078-810-MML, CV78-810-MML, NUDOCS 8105290158
Download: ML17209B117 (10)
v • d • e


Text

ATTACHMENT 5)981.i@Ega,Il.$.0lSLRlCfCRRTcmLamaczvQLHetaN"UNITEDSTATESDISTRICTCOURTCENTRALDISTRICTOFCALIFORNIA 12141617CZTZESOFANAHELM',

RIVERSIDE, BANNING,COLTONandAZUSA,CALIFORNIA, Plaintirfs,v~SOUTHERN.

CALZFORNIA EDISONCOMPANY,:

Defendant.

)))))))))))).)NO.CV-78-810-PALORDERSPECIFYING CERTAZNFACTSTOBEWITHOUT,SUBSTANTIAL CONTROVEHSY, ANDREQUIRING FURTHERBRIEFINGONOTHERISSUES2026.27OnFebruary3,1981,plaintiffs filedaMotiontoAdjudicate CertainFacts,toLimittheIssuestobe.Tried,andtoLimit:theScopeofDiscovery.

Aftercarefulconsideration ofthismotion,thememoranda andevidencesubmitted insupoortandinopoos'ion tothemotion,thearguments orcounselforallparties,andtheentirerecordinthisaction,theCourtherebyOrdersasfollows:1.Althoughthismotionischaracterized byplaintiffs asaRule16motion,theCourtf'ndsthatplaintiffs'otion shallbetreatedasamotionunderRule56oftheFederalRulesorCivilProcedure eitherforsummaryjudgmentorfor8yospS015~

I23'012I316171920212728anorder-specifying certainfactstobewithoutsubstantial controversy.

TheCourtfindsthatthedefendant isnotprejudiced bythisrecharacterization.

Thedefendant hasfullyargued,alloftheissuespresented inthismotion,bothorallyandinwriting,andhassubmitted voluminous evidenceandaffidavits insupportofitsposition.

2.Thefollowing factsarewithoutsubstantial contro-versy,andshallbedeemedestablished forthepurposesof'hisaction:I(a)BPAandotherPQfentitieshaveha'd,andcontinue=

tohave,low-costbulkpowe.available forsaletopurchasers outsidethePNMarea.SeeMoodytestimony, atpp.IZand16;(b)TheCities,aspublicentities, haveafederalstatutory preference toBPAbulkpowersurplusenergyandsurpluspeakingcapacitymarketedoutsidethePNMarea.16U.S.C.5832(c)(a);

16U.S.C.5837a;(c)Transmission facilities controlled byEdisonandothers,knownasthePacificIntertie("Intertie"),

extendfromthePNMbulkpowermarketandconnecttoEdison'selectricsystem.SeeHoodytestimony, atpp.2~3y(d)Accesstotheintertieisnecessary inorderforthecitiestoengageinbulkpowertransactions withtheBPAorotherPNUentities.

SeePlaintiffs'xhibit

~P6;(e)Certaincontracts ente.dintobyEdisonandothersgove.naccesstotheZntertieandgiveEdison 101215161719.2026andothersthepowertoprecludetheCitiesfromobtaining accesstotheintertie, subjecttotheultimateauthority oftheFERC.SeePlaintiffs'xhibits r'7-11;16U.S.C.5824i;(f)ThecitiesofAnaheimandRiverside haverequested directaccesstotheXnertie.ThecitiesofAzusa,Banning,andColtonhavenot.SeePlaintiffs'xhibits N13-16;(g)QnAugust'8, 1973andSeptember ll,1973,P.G.4E.informedthecitiesofAnaheimandRiversidethatitwouldnotprovidethem,directaccesstotheIntertie.

SeePlaintiffs'xhibit iP6and20;(h)EdisonhasinformedthecitIesofAnaheimandRiversidethatitwillnotprovidethemdirectaccesstotheIntertie.

SeePlaintiffs'xhibits ik21;24;and(i)TheCitiesaredependent uponEdisonfort,transmission ofbulkpowersupplies.

Seep.48ofEdison'smemorandum inopposit'on.

3.Thefollowing principles oflawareapplicable tothisaction:(a)Thetransmiss'on facilities knownasthePacificintertiecannotpracticably beduplicatdbyplaintiffs.

Consequently, theintertieisessential tothetransmission ofbulkpowerfromthePNMareatoplaintiffs.

SeeAssociated Pressv.UnitedStates,326U.S.1,138n.10(1945);UnitedStatesv.TerminalHsilrasaissaaistian, 22tU.S.383,t09(1912);Bsai.tv.Pro-Football, 570F.2d982,992(D.C;Cir.1977).

(b)Perserulesozantitrust lavareappropriate Ionlywhentheyrelatetoconductthatismanifestly anticompetitive.

SeeNorthernPacizicR.Co.v.UnitedStates,356U.S.1,5(1958).(c)Plaintiffs havefailedtodemonstrate thatthedefendant's restzictions onaccesstotheintertiesystemwarrantsanez'erule.(d)Zn.Blonder-TonueLaboratories, Znc.v.Universit ofIllinois, 402U.S..313,329(1971),theSupremeCourtabandoned therequirement ofmutuality ofpartiesvhenapplyingtheprinciple of'ollateral estoppandheldthatestoppelvillbeappliedunlesstheparty,candemonstrate that,itdidnothaveafullandfairoppoztuni,ty,procedurally,,

substantively, andevidential tolitigatetheissue.soughttobeestoppedinthepriorcase.Subsequently, in.ParklaneHosierCo.v.Shave,t39U.S'.322(197g),theSupremecourtheldthatthetrialcourtisgrantedbroaddiscretion indetermini whetherornottoapplythedoctrineofcollatez'al estoppel.

Nhenmakingsucha.determination; thetrialcourtshouldconside.>>

(i)theincentive totullylit'tatiinthepriorf'orum;(2)vhetheztheoriorjudgmentisinconsistent withotherdecision; and(3)theproceduzallimitations onotherproceedings.

AlsoseeUnitedStatesv.TTRaonier,627F.2d996(9thCir.1980).(e)Collateral estoppelmaybe'nvokedtoforeclosI'elitigation of'ssuesalreadydetermined inanadminis-trativeproceeding.

UnitedStatesv.UtahConstruction I2C.,3))U.).39),))'-22)!96));PTransport Sstemsv.Chauffeurs etc.,t>6p.2n106t,1066(9thCir.1971).10131617192021p7(f)Edisoniscollaterally estoppedfromdisputing thefollowing factualissuesdetermined inFERCproceedings:

(i.)TheCitiesandEdisonareinactual,andpotential competition attheretaillevel.SeePlaintiffs,'xhibits 027atp.886,andlP28atpp.-896-98.(ii)Theaporopriate ratesto'ompare todetermine whetherEdisonsubjected theCitiestounlawfulmonooolypricing("pricesqueeze")

between'February 1,.1976andAugust.16, 1979aretheA-8retailratesoaid.byEdison'slargeindustrial customers andEdison'sR-2wholesale rateoaidbyresalecustomers, suchas0heCities.SeePlaintifexhibitsiP27a.tp.874,andiP28ato.898.(iii.)Edison'sR-2wholesale rat,paidbytheCities,exceededtheA-8rtailrates.paidbyIEdison'slargeindustrial customers duringtheperiodbetweenFebruary1,.1976andAugust16,1979.SeePlaintiffs'xhibits

~~27atpo.875,882,andIP28atp.898.Astothesefacts,Edisonhadeveryincentive to'ullylitigatethembeforetheAdministr ativeLawJudgeandtheFERC.Edisonwasreoresented bycounsel,oermitted massivediscovery, allowedtooresentdocumentary eviden 10141920.2122I23'62728andtestimony, permitted tocrossexaminewitnesses, permitted toobjecttoevidentiary material,andingeneral.'iven afull,andfairopportunity tolitigatethesefactualissues.Moreover, Edisonwaspermitted toappealtheAdministrative LawJudge'sdecision, totheFERContwooccasions, with.theopportunity toraiseeachoftheobjections presently ra'sedinthisCourt.TheFERC,expressly found-that eachofthesefindings~asnecessary totheproceedings andrejectedEdison's.

contention thatthefindingsweresuperfluous.

SeePlaintiffs'xhibit

~P27atpp.885-86.TheFERCalsoindicated thatthe-findingsastotheseissuesarefinal,regardless ofthedisposition offurtherhearingsSeePlaintiffs'xhibitfP28atp.898.(g)At,thistime,the.plaintiff hasfailed,todemonstrate thattheFERChasreachedafinaldecisiononwhetherEdison'sH-2wholesale rate,paidbytheCitiesbetweenFebruary1,1976andAugust16,1979,wascost-justified.

SeePlaintiffs'xhibit

/r'28atp.899.Collateral

estoppel, therefore, shallnotbeappliedatthepresenttimetothisfactualissue.Plaintiffs'equest foranorderlim'tingdiscovery*isdeniedatthistimewithoutprejudice.

TheCourtfindsthatinlightofthefindingsabove,therequested restrictio upondiscovery ma'ybeunnecessary.

Thepartiesarereminded, however,oftherequirements ofHule26oftheFederalRulesofCivilProcedure tolimitdiscovery tomattersrelevanttothesubjectmatterinvolvedinthepend'ngaction,andto 1012information thatappearsreasonably calculated toleadtothediscovery ofadmissible evidence.

5..PursuanttoRule16oftheFederalRulesofCivilProcedure, theCourtherebydirectstheattorneys forbothpartiestoappearoni4fonday, July20,1981,at10:00a.m.inCourtroom 12foraconference toconsiderthesimplification oftheissues.inthiscase.Prior-tothisconference, onorbeforeJune15,1981,plaintiffs shallsubmitabrieffullyexamining whetherornotthefollowing issuesareproperlyissuesfortrialinthiscase:(a)Theimpactofgovernment regulation ofdefen-dant'sactivities andratesuponplaintiffs'laims inthisaction;161719202127(b)The'impact ofCongressional orFERCencourage-mentofthe.presentintertiesystemon'laintiff's claim;.(c)Therelevance of'onspiracy theoryundertheantitrust laws,inlightofthecontracts enteredintobyEdison-and otherswithrespecttotheintertie; (d)Therelevance oipriorsettlements'r ZOAsenteredintobetweenplaint'iffs anddefendant, onplaintiffs'resent claims;(e)Theimpactorrelevance oxPURPAuponplaintifclaims;(f)Theconsequences, particular lywithrespecttostanding, ofAzusa,Banning,andColton'sfailuretorequestdirectaccess-to the.ntertie;and(g)Therelevance orfactsconcerning future I23availability ofbulkpowersourcesoutsidethePNMtoplaintiffs.

Plaint'fs'rief shallalsoaddressthequestionofabifurcation inthisactionoftheissuesofliability anddamages.Defendant maythensubmitabriefinresponsetoplaintiffs'.

brief,onorbeforeJuly3,1981.10ZTZSSOORDERED.ZTiSFURTHERORDEREDthattheClerkshallserve,byUnited.Statesmail,copiesofthisOrderoncounselforplaintiffs andcounselfordefendant inthisaction.Dated:May18,19811617Maom.~ucasUnitedtateDistrictJudge1927 UNITEDSTATESNUCLEARREGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORETHEATOMICSAFETYANDLICENSING BOARDIntheMatterof))FloridaPower6LightCompany))(St.LucieNuclearPlant,UnitNo.2))CERTIFICATE OFSERVICEDocketNo.50-389AIherebycertifythatcopiesofthe"MotiontoEstablish Procedures, ForaDeclaration ThataSituation Inconsistent withtheAntitrust LawsPresently ExistsandForRelatedRelief"withAttachments 1-5,Appendices AandB,and'indices(withoutdocuments) ofAppendices CthroughI,havebeenservedonthefollowing byhanddelivery(*)orbydeposit,intheU.S.Mail,firstclass,postageprepaid,this27thdayofMay,1981.IherebycertifythatcopiesofAppendices CthroughI(withdocuments) willbeservedonallparties,including theNuclearRegulatory Commission, byhanddelivery(*)orbydepositintheU.S.Mail,firstclass,postageprepaid,onthe28thdayofMay,1981.*ChaseStephens, ChiefDocketing SServiceSectionNuclearRegulatory Commission Washington, D.C.20555IvanW-Smith,EsquireChairmanAtomicSafetySLicensing BoardNuclearRegulatory Commission Washington, D.C.20555RobertM.Lazo,EsquireAtomicSafetySLicensing BoardNuclearRegulatory Commission Washington, D.C.20555MichaelA.Duggan,EsquireCollegeofBusinessAdministration University ofTexasAustin,Texas78712Elizabeth S.Bowers,ChairmanAtomicSafety6Licensing BoardNuclearRegulatory Commission Washington; D.C.20555'eromeSaltzman, ChiefAntitrust 6Indemnity GroupNuclearRegulatory Commission Washington, D.C.20555RichardS.Salzman,EsquireAtomicSafety6Licensing BoardPanelNuclearRegulatory Commission Washington, D.C.20555WilliamD.Paton,EsquireA.P.Hodgdon,EsquireCounselforNRCStaffNuclearRegulatory Commission Washington, D.C.20555J.A.Bouknight,'r.

Lowenstein, Newman,.ReisEAxelrad1025Connecticut Avenue,N.W.Washington, D.C.20036JosephRutberg,EsquireLeeScottDewey,EsquireFredricChanania, EsquireCounselforNRCStaffNuclearRegulatory Commission Washington, D.C.20555 Dr.PeterA.MorrisAtomicSafety&Licensing BoardPanelNuclearRegulatory Commission Washington, D.C.20555Dr.OscarH.ParisAtomicSafety&Licensing BoardPanelNuclearRegulatory Commission Washington, D.C.20555WilliamH.Chandler, EsquireChandler, O'Neal,Avera,Gray&Stripling P.O.Drawer0Gainesville, Florida32602JanetUrban,EsquireDepartment ofJusticeP.0,Box14141Washington, D.C.20044IDonaldA.Kaplan,EsquireRobertFabrikant, EsquireAntitrust DivisionDepartment ofJusticeWashington, D.C.20530HerbertDym,EsquireCovington

&Burling88816thStreet,N.W.Washington, D.C.20006ThomasGurney,Sr.,Esquire203NorthMagnoliaAvenueOrlando,Florida32802WilliamC.Wise,Esquire120018thStreetSuite500Washington, D.C.20036CharlesR.P.Brown,EsquireBrown,Paxton&Williams301,South 6thStreet.P.O.Box1418FortPierce,Florida33450Hutchinson IslandCoalition c/oHelenSheaWells93ElMarDriveJensenBeach,Florida33457GeorgeR.Kucik,EsquireMareGary,EsquireEllenE.SwardArent,Fox,Kintner,Plotkin&Kahn1815HStreet,N.W.Washington, D.C.20006Robert,A.JablonAlanJ.RothDanielGuttmanAttorneys fortheGainesville RegionalUtilities, theLakeWorthUtilities Authority, theUtilities Commission ofNewSmyrnaBeach,theSebringUtilities Commission,'nd theCitiesofAlachua,Bartow,FortMeade,KeyWest,LakeHelen,MountDora,Newberry, St.Cloud,andTallahassee, FloridaandtheFloridaMunicipal Utilities Association BY

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML17209B117&oldid=750075"