ML19329C049

Memorandum of Points & Authorities of DOJ Re Decision of Special Master.Certificate of Svc Encl

ML19329C049
Person / Time
Site:	Davis Besse, Perry
Issue date:	06/30/1975
From:	Aiuvalasit A, Berger M, Charno S JUSTICE, DEPT. OF
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
NUDOCS 8002120783
Download: ML19329C049 (9)

Text

- .

Pt!tu,

^.

h- -

s

- a 6: :

g \

s.

t .1 v,?\

s U:!ITED STATES OF AMERICA I' J U "** ' ' '"' ' ' . -

~ !:! ~~

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSIO:1 5'," t s

a . .

i ." .,>

BEFORE THE ATOMIC . SAFETY A!!D LICEtiSING EOARD N In the Mr.tter )

)

The Tolede Edison Company )

The Clevaland Electric Illuminating ) Docket No. 50-346A Company )

(Dt.vis-3esne liuclear Power Station) )

)

The Cleveland Electric Illuv.inating ) Docket : sos. 50-440A 1 Company, et al. ) and 50-441A (Perry Plant, Units 1 and 2) ) '

MEMORA::DUM CF c* *s m A J.*.

POT*se%9m.O !1..' M s .~.t.w. *. !.J* ..

.p = m. 7 7.. .: %/

eng t m. v.m.p V f*a -e -*-m e

Da r n.D.?4 * ..

?. .. v 5m. A 4.r ?re* 1 4 5.*mt*..rA.ndo g

. r.0 2 TtLp

. r,_-= . .r o1 .-. 0, ,. O,

. ,. n..., e. s.

inr.

.a .o . m .3, 1

Pursuant to the Order of Chairman Rigler of June 25, 19 ~' 5 ,

the Department of Justice submits this memorandum of peints ,

and authorities in support of its challenges to findingsof privi-lege by the Special Master. The Department incorporates by reference'its arguments in opposition to Applicants' Claims of Privilege contained in the Reply Memorandum of the Department of Justice on Applicants Claims of Privilege, submitted May 2, 1975.

8002 3gg

, m -

t

~

I .__ . - -

In its List of. Challenges to the Special Master's Findings

~

of Privilege the Department has challenged the

• findings of attorne -client privilege as to those documents for which Applicants either failed to claim the privilege (Category 2) er waived the privilege entizoly. (Category 4) . In the classic statement of the attorney-client privilega, made in United States v. United Shce Machinery Coro., 37 F. Supp. 357, 358-59 (D. Mass. 1950), Judge Ny=,anski stated that: "The privilege applies only if . . . (4) the privilege has been (a) claimed and (b) not waived by the client." It is clear from this 1anguage that for the privilege to be upheld it must be specifically claimed; the mere lack of waiver of a claim of privilege by a party does not constitute the positive assertion necessary to bring the document within the privilege. It was held in Magida

v. Continental can Co., 12 F.R.D. 74, 77 (S.D.N.Y. 1951) that "where there has been a waiver of privilege, clearly expressed, the deponent cannot object to questions concerning the privileced matter. The waiver need not be expressed in writing nor in any particular form, but the' intent to waive aust be expressed eicher by word or act or caission to speak and, act." (emphasis added).

This rule, requiring a specific claim of privilege, is consistent with the theory behind its application. The purpose of the attorney-client privilege is to promote full disclosure and communication between attorney and client. 8 Wigmore, Evidence S2290, at 554 (Mcnaughten rev. 1961). (hereinafter cited as

~ Wigmore). On the other hand, the privilege acts as a bar to full examination of all the evidence bearing on the litigation.

2

m ,

t i To accommodate each of thesa opposing interests insofar as pos-sible, t:e privilege "is worth preserving for the sake of a general policy, but it is conetheless an obstacle to the inves-tigation of the truth. It ought to be strictly confined within

the narrowest possible limits-consistent with its principle."

Wigmore, S2291, at 554. See also, Radiane Burners, Inc. v.

American Gas Association, 320 F. 2d 314 (7th Cir.) cert. denied,

'375 U.S. 929 (1963); United States v. Goldfarb, 328 F. 2d 280

, I (6th Cir.) cert. denied 377 U.S. 976 (1964). r Because'the privilege is to be narrowly applied, it follows that the party sacking to withhold evidence through ,u:se of the privilege'"has the burden of establishing the existence of the l J privilege." 8 Wright & Miller, Federal Practica and Procedure, l i .

l S2016 at 126 (1970); United States v. Johnson, 465 F. 2d 793 l l

4 i (5th Cir. 1972); Honeywell, Inc. v. Piper Aircraft Co., 50 F.R.D. )

117 (M.D. Pa. 1970). In order to sustain its burden of proof,

] f

! the party claiming the privilege ~must "show slufficient facts.as '

! to bring the identified and described document within the narrow .

confines of the privilege." International Pacer Co. v. Fireboard 1 Corporation, 63'F.R.D. 88, 94 (M .- D . Pa. 1974). It is apparent in the present situation that if the Applicants did not claim the' privilege, or if they specifically waived it, they could not have met their burden of establishing factually that the i

documents were within the privilege. The Department requests the Master to so hold with respect to the documents in Categories 2 and'4.

3

. , , . ...-.~.. . ,. . - - - , - , . . . , -..

r

- t m _

. . I

- II-l ,

The , Department of Justa.ce has alco c.nallen.:ed tuow documents I

which the Master held to come within the "wo::V product" cxclusion; al'though no claim of " work product" had been wk.le with despect

~

thereto (' Category 3), and those documents as to which th " work

?

product" privilege had been vaived (category 5). The " work product" I

exclusion is intended to-promota full preparation of a case by i

an attorr.ey, free frcm the fear that his thoughts and mental impressiens will later be discovered by his cpponents. Hickman i

v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495 (1947). As with the attorney-client privilege, a party claiming protection under the " work prcduct" exclusion has the burden of proving that documents claimed .as protected fall within the exclusion. Mc:eica v. Oil Carriers Jcing venture, 23 F.R.D. 15 (E.D. Pa. 1958); Har. ell v. Pennsvivania R.

Co.,

f 19 F.R.D. 232 (E.D. Pa. 1953). Sincedpplicantshavefailed to claim the exclusion, it is difficult to believe that they have sustained the burden of prcof required for its application.

1 Further, the fear that mental impressions would be revealed, an essentia' element of the privilege, cannot have been present where. Applicants felt no need to make a claim of exclusion.

i Under these principles the Master should hold that the l

documents in Categories 3 and 5 are not validly to be deemed I

privileged. . ,

III Fin, ally, the Department of Justice has challenged findings i

of privilege for those documents, claimed as protected under the attorney-client. privilege, where neither the author nor the

, 4

! l-t .

'- m .

'r.ecipient 'is an atec ney (Category 6)

. - . It is . essential'..

element of the privilege that only ccmmunications~batween an .

attorney and a client are privileged. United States v. United Shoe Machinery Corp., 89 F. Supp. 357, 358-359, (D. Mass. 1950T.

Documents which on their face are not privileged do not aeccue so whan transmitted to an attorney, even if for the purpose of seeking legal advice. Colton v. United States 306 F. 2d 633 (2d Cir. 1962); Bouscher v. United States, 316 F. 2d 451 'Sth Cir. 1963); Falsonc v. United States, 205.F. 2d 734 (5th Cir.

1 1953). As the Second Circuit noted in Bouscher v. United Scates.

316 F. 2d at 639, "any other rule would parmit a person to pro-vent disclosure of any of his papers by the simple expedient of keeping them in the possession of his attorney." This rule was applied to a cprporation in Radiant Burners, Inc. v. American Gas Association, 320 F. 2d 314, 324 (7th Cir. 1963):

certainly the privilege would never be avail-able to allcw a corporation to funnel its papers y

and documents into the hands of its lawycrs for custodial purposes and thereby avoid disclosure.

Thus, those documents neither written by nor addressed to an attorney cannot be privileged, regardless whether they may eventually have found their way into an attorney's files.

IV As noted in the List of Challenges, the Department of Justice joins in the challeng'e to those documents challenged by the City of Cleveland in Category 2, Part A of their List of Challenged Documents for the reasons given by the City of Cleveland.

5

w- _  %

~

.t' ion cf the

~

In conclusion, t.he Department urges appli.. -

principles set forth above and in the Reply Memorandum of the Department of Justice on Applicants' Claims of Privilege to the p'roceeding concerning the Mast'er's granting of claims of priv '

ilege.

Respectfully"subnitted,

/* ).. i a

- (. _. . / i. -%_

~~

. STEVEN M. CliAP.;O s .

0 0l)b,Mn.s

//

7 s) /*)

.,'Q%., ,

,MELVIN G. BERGER .

/ C A .

. . . $f 'l)L.1 t l LGv.' / Jl . . ( .{, W .^e.$q $

ANTHONY v.f.m UVALASIT t/ /

1 ,

,hd ;c:'[h bb* brL.k pANET R. UP3AN Attorneys, Department of Jus.ic;

. Washington, D.C. 20530 s.<-

4_er e

o 's ,.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY CO!GIISSI, obi B3 FORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICE!!3ING SOARD In the Matter )

, )

)

The Toledo Edison Company )

The Cleveland Electric Illuminating ) -

Ccmpany )

(Davis-Besse Muclear Power Station) ) Docke t 2 o'. 50-346A

)

The Cleveland Electric Illuminating )

Comoany, et al. Docket Nos. 50-240 s

)

and 30- ,...in 4

(Perry Plant, Units 1 and 2) )

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

.I'hereby certify that copics of MEMOP2.!!DUM OF POIKT3 A::D AUTHORITIES OF DEPARTME!!T OF JUSTICE WITH REGARD TO THE DECISIO:: OF THE SPECIAL tiASTER have been served upon all of the partief listed en the attachment hereto by deposit in the United States mail, first class, airmail or by hand delivery, this 27th day of June 1975.

00n. P_ V- /? bb'. iN A.

[4ASET R. URBAN Attorney, Antitrust Divisica Department of Justice O

t

.. .. ~

. .e .

. .A.T'.".A. CEFENT..

Douglas. Rigler, Esquire Benjamin H. Vogler, Esquire Chairman Roy P. Lessy, Jr., Esquire Atomic Safety,and Licensing Office of the General Counsel Board . .

Foley, Lardner, Hollabaugh . Nuclear Regulatery Cers:.ssion Washington, D.C. 20555

& Jacobs 815 Connecticut Ave., N.W. Gerald Charnoff, Esquire Washington, D.C. 20006 William Bradford Rey.iolds, Esquire John H. Brebbia, Esquire Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbricge 910 Sevanteenth Street, N.W.

Atomic Safety and Licens2.ng Washington, D.C. 20006 Board Alston, Miller & Gaines Lee C. Howley, Eiquire 1776 K Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. '20006 Vice President & General Ccunsel.

The Cleveland Electbic e Illuminating Ccmpany John M. Frysiah, Esquire Atomic Safecy and Licensing Post Office Box 5000 Cleveland, Chio 44101 Board Panel -

Nuclear Regulatory Ccenission Donald E. Hauser, Esquire Washington, D.C. 20555 Corporate Solicitor Atomic Safety and Licensing The Cleveland Eleccric Illuminating Ccmcany Board Panel Post Office son 5000 Nuclear Regulatory Cornission Cleveland, Chio 44101 Washington, D.C. 20555 John Lansdale, Jr., Esquire Frank W. Haras Cox, Langford 5 3rc..n Chief, Public Proce'edings 21 Dupont Circle, N.W. .

Staff Washington, D.C. 20036 Office of the Secretary Nuclear Regulatory Ccrnission Chris Schraff, Esquire Washington, D.C. 20555 Office of Attorney General Abraham 3raitman State of Chio Office of Antitrust and State House Columbcs, Chic 43215 Indemnity Nuclear Regulatory Cornission Washington,'D.C. 20555 Karen H. Adkins, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Herbert R. Whitting, Esquire Antitrust Section Robert D. Hart, Esquire 30 East Broad Street Law Department 15th Floor Columbus, Chio 43215 City Hall Cleveland, Ohio 44114

- Leslie Henry, Esquire Fuller, Henry, Hodge Reuben Goldberg, Esquire & Snyder David C. Hjelmfelt, Esquire 1700 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. 300 Madisen Avenue Toledo, Ohio 43604 Suite 550 Washington, D.C. 20006

. e D

MW e MW 6$ qg p gg p q g, , gg,,

i., "'"* HOMO e .

-m,--,

+

e . . . .

-Thomas A. Kayuha, Esquire

- Chio Edison Company ,

47 11 orth Main Street

' Akron, Ohio 44308 .

l'

~ David.M. Olds, Esquire .

Reed, Smith, Shaw & McClay 747 Union Trust Building 15219

- . .Pittsburc.h , Pennsvivania .

Mr. Raymond Kudukis Director of Utilities '

~

City of C12Veland .

1201 Lakeside' Avenue

• Cleveland, Chic 44114

Wallace L. Duncan, Esquire

• Jon T. Brown, Esquire Duncan, Erewn, Weinberg .

& Palmer 1700 Pennsylvania Avenue, i.W.

Washingten,-D.C. 20006 ,

. Edward A. Matto, Esc.uire .

4 Assistant-Attorney General -

• Chief, Antitrus: Section 30 East Broad Street .

15th Floor Columbus, Ohio 432'15 .

Richard M.<Firestone

! Assistant Attornay General Antitrust Secticn 30 East Broad Strect- 8 15th Floor Columbus, Ohio 43215 Victor F. Greenslade, Jr., Esquire 1

Principal Staff Ccunsel The Cleveland' Electric Illuminating Cc=pany Post Office Bo:c 5000 ,

Cleveland, Ohio _44101 .

4 6

,g,, m M,. ,gmm , 6 i

4

, . . - _ . .- . - - - - - . - . - - , , . , , -