ML17209B117

From kanterella
Revision as of 18:43, 18 May 2018 by StriderTol (talk | contribs) (Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
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)


Text

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~

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).

(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