ML19329F180
| ML19329F180 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Midland |
| Issue date: | 07/09/1973 |
| From: | Watson K WALD, HARKRADER & ROSS |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19329F179 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8006200816 | |
| Download: ML19329F180 (9) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:I ,i . CITY OF WASHINGTON )
) ss.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ) Keith S. Watson, being duly sworn, deposes and says: that he is one of the attorneys for the Applicant, Consumers Power Company, in antitrust proceedings before the Atomic Energy Commission involving the Midland Units; that during the period here involved, he has had supervisory responsibility with respect to actions by Applicant's Washington counsel responding to orders of the AEC Hearing Board with regard to discovery demands against Applicant by other parties; that he is familiar with the actions of Applicant's own personnel, from personal knowledge and on information and belief, in complying with such discovery demands by other parties; that the attached statement is true and accurate, to the best of his knowledge, information and belief. I Keith S. Watson Subscribed and sworn to before me this 9th day
, of July 1973.
M A .Q Notaty Public My Commission Expires: ydacy /fl/974 l 8006200 h[[ - l
;
l Statement of Keith S. Watson
- 1. The various document demands from opposing parties imposed upon the Applicant the task of searching, extracting, evaluating, and producing an enormous bulk of documentary material within a relatively short period of time. As has already been reported to the Board, it is reliably estimated that over four million document :
pages were scrutinized during this process. Due to the shortage of experienced Company personnel, it was deter-mined at the outset that in order to meet the deadlines assigned by the Board and to ensure the comprehensiveness and accuracy of the production, that the principal judgment factors would be supplied by Washington counsel. In other words, the primary work of analysis and evaluation would be undertaken in Washington by specialized counsel, rather than in Michigan by Company personnel. Thus, the extraction process which took place in the Company's headquarters and field offices was designed and carried out to ensure that any and all possible documents that could possibly be called for by the various demands were sent forward to Washington for analysis and production by Washington counsel. In order to ensure this, it was
l necessary to utilize lawyers to supervise the extraction process, and this was done. However, as stated, the exercise of judgment and discrimination, which led inevitably to a substantial winnowing of the document flood, took place at the second stage of the process. Thus, when the analysis was completed by Washington counsel, a rather large number of documents which were
physically axtracted from the company files were found to be either not called for or else exact copies of other documents. This is the basic reason why a large number of documents forwarded to Washington were not produced.
- 2. The following details of this process, of which I am personally aware, may be of help to the Board in evaluating the foregoing points:
(a) The file search was conducted by approxi-mately fourteen company employees on the basis of instruc-tions by Washington counsel concerning the method and substance of the file search process. It is my best estimate that approximately 55,000 document pages were forwarded to Washington. (b) The Company's file search supervisor (Mr. Judd Bacon) and three of the other file searchers
are attorneys, The other ten are professional employees, but are not attorneys. (c) The file searchers, particularly the non-attorneys, were expressly instructed to, and did err substantially en the side of inclusion. For this reason, much irrelevant or unresponsive material was extracted. For example, I have ascertained that at least 2,000 extracted document pages were dated prior to 1960, and were not otherwise producible. In the time available, I have not been able to determine the total number of document pages that fall into this category. (d) A very large number of documents not produced were duplicates. The file searchers were not able to prepare and maintain a current document index permitting determination whether a duplicate document had been previously extracted. Preparatio. of such a list, and the necessary comparisons, would have been so time consuming as to make it completely impossible to l complete production in the time directed by the Board. ] With regard to intra-office materials (the bulk of the extracted documents), the author's copy, the addressee's 1 e copy, plus various carbon copies typically would be l a i 4-l l
located in different files, often searched at widely separated times. Due to the size of the Company, a large number of copies (often as many as six) of such documents were typically extracted from various head-quarters files. Reports sent to the Divisions were typically found in each of the files of the twenty-six division offices. Every such copy would be extracted, except possibly in rare instances where a file searcher may have recalled having previously extracted its exact duplicate -- a statistically remote event given the number of searchers and documents, and the extent of time covered by the search. l To the maximum feasible extent in the time available, Washington counsel excluded duplicates in making production to opposing counsel. This was done in accordance with the Joint Document Request which called for such exclusion (except where the duplicate was individually annotated). In the short time available I have been able to identify more than 7,000 pages trans-ferred to Washington counsel which were exact copies of other extracted documents and were therefore not j produced.
(e) The file search was begun immediately upon receipt of the Joint Document Request of July 26, 1972. Thus, documents responsive to many discovery items later modified or deleted as a result of meetings of counsel in late September and as a result of the Board's order of November 28, 1972, were extracted and transmitted to Washington counsel. The file search was at least one-third complete at the time of the Board's order of November 28 which considerably narrowed the scope of the ! document demand. I have not been able to quadtify the number of documents extracted but not produced for this reason, although I believe it to be substantial. For example, in response to Item 4 of the Joint Document Request, the Company was asked to provide all Michigan Pool Committee reports. These were extracted and sent to Washington counsel, but the Board's order of November 28 limited the discovery to Pool Committee reports relating Applicant's power to grant or deny access to coordination. Over 6,000 pages of such Reports were transferred to Washington counsel and were subsequently found to be not responsive to Item 4, as modified by the Board.
(f) The file searchers were instructed to ignore questions of privilege. For the sake of uniformity and accuracy, such questions were decided by Washington-counsel. Documents deemed by Washington counsel to be privileged were withheld from submission, and a list of these documents and an explanation of the nature of privi-lege claimed were sent to opposing counsel on April 26, 1973. These documents involved about 1,200 pages of material. (g) The document search was not confined to documents responsive to opposing party document demands, but covered documents of possible relevance to the Applicant's affirmative and defensive case. The file searchers were instructed to extract a number of categories of documents of interest to Company counsel but not sought by any document demand; e.g., documents relating to municipal " tying" practices. These documents are included in the total document pages which have been referred to as being transferred to Washington counsel.
- 3. To recapitulate: an inspection of the documents in the time available since the July 6 informal conference indicates the following:
1 I J
.i i
I
9 m E i ' (1) About 55,000 document pages were trans-ferred to Washington counsel from Applicant's headquarters and field offices. (No exact count was maintained.) Of these,approximately 26,000 pages were produced. (2) Of the balance, we have been able to establish that (a) a minimum of 7,000 pages were dupli-cates of produced documents (b) a minimum of about 6,000 pages were not called for as a result of a later modification of the Joint Demand by Board order (c) 1,200 pages were classified as privileged, and parties so advised. 1 (d) a minimum of 2,000 pages were ; pre-1960 documents not called for under the Board's order. It is my opinion, based on my detailed knowledge of the Washington process, that the balance, or less than 13,000 pages, constituted documents which were not pro-duced for one or more of the following reasons: (i) not called for by the extensively modified demand, ' (ii) extracted in response to the Applicant's requirements, l l l
+
e *
~
(iii) .were further. duplicates, or (iv) Washington counsel-disagreed with the imputed judgment of the extractor that the document was (or might be) called for. These
. pages' represented less than 24 per cent of the total volume. It would not be possible,.without a complete review of the non-produ~ced documents,-to determine the number of documents falling into each of the foregoing categories.
E en 4 9'- w - - , - _ - , . - - - w , ,- p-w n y e
UNITED STATES OF A!4 ERICA A'KlXIC EITERGY CCI?!ISSION In the l'atter of )
! ) Docket Hos. 50-329A
! CONSGtERS PO'.E CO ~2Ai!Y -
)
) 50-330A (F.idland Plant, Units 1 and 2) )
_ ) AFFIDAVIT t a
/
Judd L. Bacon of Jackson, Michigan, being first duly sworn, deposes and states upon information and belief as follows:
- 1. I am a Senior Attorney in the Legal Department of C'onsumers Power Company and my responsibilities include supervision of the Company file search initiated pursuant to this proceeding.
- 2. Following receipt of document requests of July 26, Augast 16, September 21, and September 25, 1972, the requests were reviewed by out-side and Company counsel and discussed with appropriat_e Co:niany employees.
In view of the n'ature of the document requests, it was determined th?.t the file search would require review of a substantial percentage of the Company's files. .. . 3 The file search focused initially upon the asterisked itens of the Joint Docu=ent Request, but also included a search for responses 8 0 % ( 9 0 TT V 3
?
. tre et.hc other reqtsc'.c. Two at.torney vere ansi 5ned to the scarch on a full-time basis whllc I and nonlegal personnel also. contributed signifi-cnntly in time and effort. .
14 . By the time of the prehearing' conference in October 1972, review of the files of the Varketing and Rate Departments, including files of the vice presidents in charge of those Departments, had been
-completed. Morcover, review of the files containing documents responsive to the asterisked items had also been cubstantially conpleted. Based on l that experience, the file searchers estimated at that time that the f 1 l search could be ccnpleted .by the f$rst of the year if favc$rable rulings f
were obtained on all of the Company's objections to the dom'--nt requests, llovever, the search has cince proven more time consuming than originally
, I anticipated. While the asterisked requests gener' ally called for rela- .
l I tively easily identifiable reports and analyses, the re=aining requests, j l often calling for all doct=ents " relating" or " referring" to certain ' broad categories, required time consuming cearches of correspondence, .! , interoffice menos and the like. The actual extent of the remaining l
. files, as.vell as the time required for reading, indexing and review of already extracted documents, also has proven greater than had been antici- I i
l I l pated. To date, approxi=ately 39,000 docu=ent pages have been extracted I J by Conpany percennel and transmitted to Washington counsel for review. It in extremely difficult to estimate the number of docu=ent pages that ! retc.ain to be re.-leved before the search is completed. Approximately l
.one-hla f of the persons and departments having files that need to be cxamined have been c.m=ined. Isovever, I expect that lesc material that l ;
; '
is ger. ane vill be found. in the files yet to be searched than has been
5 3 i l l rnund in thne c.irce.dy :y.r.=ined. My rou;;h estimate of the n=:ber of 1 i dor:tcent pages yet, to be reviewed Iri PO,CCO. Thin figure doca not in-ciude field offic.c doctments. 5 To deal vith this situation, another Ccmpany attorney vac coa.itted on Decenber !+,1972 to work full time on the project, and all three attorneys engaged in'the file search have been ordered to l vork overtir.e on the project as well. One week later, three nonlegal employees were assigned to assist these attorneys on a full-time basis; , one of these employees is also devoting overtime to the search. To date the search has constned approxi=ately 1,760 legal rdan-hours and
~1,100 nonlegal man-hours and has resulted in the review of. files of the 5
following offices: All officers except Chairman of the Board and the President . Marketing Department .,. Executive Manager Electric Planning . Power Ecsources and System Planning Departnent (substantially complete) Director, Power Resources and Systen Planning Senior Supervisory Engineer, Interconnection Pirnning Interconnection Coordinator Rate Research Depart =ent Data Control Department (partial) Rates Department Executive Director of Rates 3 Research and Data Control Data Control Supervisor (partial) , ; Leg'ai Department , i Electric En5 1neering Depart =ent (partial)
- 6. The files of the follouing headquarters offices rm,i to be i
searched: Chaircan of the Board and President Executive Ccr ittee Director of Division Ad tinistration Executive isssistant to Vice President in Charge of Divisions Manager of Mar} eting . General Supervisor of Cc=nercial Electric and C-overn"-ntal Service.i Ger.cral Goverr.= ental Serv'ces Engineer , 5
1;
)
/ rea D':ve:.cir. ns Departn:nt
- Direc. tar of Arca Develor .c:2
- F.2:e tiw: !!.inag2r of Electric Trcns ission cnd Di .tribution Princip sl. I'r.;;ineer, Power Facilities Ple" 4r.g bulk Po,.tr Production Departr.ent ISnar,cr of Balh Power Proluction Sy, item Op-2rntiens Guperintendent .
;
Project Pancger, Karn Units 3 and 4 Project Manager, Ludington - Proj4ct M:am5 r, Midland Project Manager, Palisades Mana;;cr' of Electric Engineering Electric Transmission end Distribution Depart:ne'nt . Manager of Electric Transmission and Distribution Electric Transmission and Distribution Coordinator Assistant Controller Assistent Secretaries (2) Assistant Treasurers (3) . Director of Gover-aant Affairs
- Director of. Civic' Affairs Director of Econonic and Financial Plan 61ng ~
Personal Attorney Files Director, Pdolic Infomation [
' I estimate that another 1,500 man-hours will be. required to cceplete this , ,
1 I cfrort. I also estinate that it is unlikely that the headquarters file search can be.conpleted prior to February 16, 1973 7 It is not possible to state with certainty the time and , reso'urces necessary to co=plete a field office file search. The Conpany-i has 12 division headquarters and 26' local district offices having elec-tric service respsasibilities located throughout the_ Lover Peninsula of Michigan--offices ,fr.ich cre as far as 250 miles from Jackson, Mic51gan. Thece offices employ = ore than 1,100 executive, professional. and as 4 3-
- trative e=ployees who have electric service responsi'gilities. The Cc -
pany's General Office heciquarters in Jr.ckson has abcat 1,000 such r.ployees (or less th:ct one-hcif of the total of such employees). The files located
; . .
in a division handqua-ters are approxi=ately comparable in tulk to these . in a major de,sart:and of the General Office headque--ters in Jachson.
+ - - ,-.--.e---, , .- , - - - - - , , - , - - +-re - e.- er- r - -- - - -v
N
- 8. z: rie d o.'ftce file ces.rch proccan seutd require :.rnit.ed i:.:rt:ral Office pecx. .u t t.o nupervisc .cnti coordinate the neurch with fhld o ffic. personnel ..an wo tid cluo require transporting docutt.rts to CcuIey I
h.m vuartern fo. pruccesi.g. I estic:ite that the field office file suech l uill require ut 1:ast until May 1, 1973 9 Ab:, cat a thorough file cearch," it is not possible to state catecarically whst dociciacd are, or are not, located in the field office ' filen. Ilovever, given the nature of the issues raised in this proceeding,- I believe that such a search would primarily produce duplicative or cumu-o 3stive docunents, c.n1 is not required to develop an adequate record in I e this case.
- 10. The Conpmsy's policies concerning coordination are fomu- ,
lated, initiated, and overseen by officers and other Conpany officials, all of whc= are located in the Ccrapany's Jackson madquarters. For exanple, negotiations with other utilities are conducted and policy determinations I concerning such sub.lects as wholesale power, interconnection, pooling, 1 I reserve charing, or wheeling are made and supervised by headqua.-ters personnel. Further deponent says not. i\ [29
- .Zg','O Ds n l Judd L. Bacon I \
' 1
~
. TAT 2 OF MICHIGAII ) :
~) 53. '
CU.~;;'El 0F JACY.Mi ) On thic St.1 day of December,1972, before ree, a notary Public in cnd for said Ccun .y personally appeared Judd L. Bacon, to ne known to be the came person described in and who executed the within instrt=ent, who tele:owledged the ss=e to be his free act ahd deed.
- ';'.-;, .
.p=5 .
n.ytu;, m a-t _' s l
,'l 0.v. . o''c.., . I:,/ : Notary Public, Jackscn Cc.unty, Michiscn
, .. A -
!!y Co ission Expires April 20, 1974
? .'l' />; ,n y . ._=.-
. .o. .,
.,,' oh. c.y. td . .y....,,..-
1
' UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION In the Matter of )
) Docket Nos. 50-329A CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY ) and 50-330A
'(Midland Units 1 and 2) )
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of APPLICANT'S ANSWER TO INTERVENORS' MOTION . FOR RECONSIDERATION AND MOTION TO COM-PEL, dated July 9,1973, in the above-captioned matter have been served on the following by deposit in the United States
. mail, first class or air mail, this 9th day of July,1973:
Jerome Garfinkel, Esq.,' Chairman Dr. J. V. Leeds, Jr. Atomic Safety and Licensing Board P. O. Box 941 Atomic Energy Commission Houston, Texas 77001 Washington, D. C. 20545 William T. Clab ault , Esq. Hugh K. Clark, Esq. Joseph J. Saunders, Esq. P. O. Box 127A David A. Leckie, Esq. Kennedyville, Maryland 21645 Public Counsel Section Antitrust Division James Carl Pollock, Esquire Department of Justice 2600 Virginia Avenue , N. W. Washington, D. C. 20530 Washington, D. C. 20037 Joseph Rutberg, Jr. , Esq. Antitrust Counsel for AEC Regulatory Staff Atomic Energy Commission Washington, D. C. 20545
-Wallace E. Brand, Esq.
Antitrust Public Counsel Section P. O. Box 7513 Washington, D. C. 20044 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Atomic Energy Commiscion Washington, D. C. 20545 Keith S. Watson . ___ . . . _ . . . .}}