ML20136B330

Comments on Conforming Amends Re Proposed Nondisclosure Regulations.Scope of Discovery Subj to Limitation by Presiding Officer

ML20136B330
Person / Time
Issue date:	12/03/1984
From:	Cotter B Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
To:	Mapes J NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD)
Shared Package
ML19310G510	List: ML20136B018 ML20136B085 ML20136B100 ML20136B185 ML20136B221 ML20136B242 ML20136B249 ML20136B260 ML20136B270 ML20136B275 ML20136B283 ML20136B292 ML20136B307 ML20136B319 ML20136B326 ML20136B330 ML20136B347 ML20136B360 ML20136B377 ML20136B389 ML20136B438 ML20136B462 ML20136B643 ML20136B650 ML20136B665 ML20136B676 ML20136F399 ML20136F403 ML20136F444 ML20136F531 ML20136F589 ML20136F602 ML20136F673 ML20136F786 ML20136F794 ML20136F803 ML20136G003 ML20136G231
References
FRN-48FR36358, RULE-PR-2 AB78-1-023, AB78-1-23, NUDOCS 8511200186
Download: ML20136B330 (1)

Text

/tto la) p mv EdGH t . "% UNITED STATES f .- E NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION E ^$ ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD PANEL

?,

/ WASHIN GTON, D.C. 20555 December 3, 1984 -

i MEMORANDUM FOR: Jane R. Mapes-Regulations Division ELD f

FROM: B. Paul Cotter, Jr.

Chief Administratici Judge

SUBJECT:

CONFORMING ADMENDMENTS RELATED TO PROPOSED N0NDISCLOSURE REGULATIONS We see nothing substantively wrong with your proposed conforming amendments, but we do question whether they are necessary or whether they merely. contribute to the proliferation of cryptic cross-references in the Rules of Practice.

1. Scope of discovery. The statement that parties may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, which is relevant to the subject matter involved in the proceeding, has never been construed as being absolute either in the context of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or our 6 2.740. It is always subject to limitation by the presiding officer under appropriate circumstances, generally by protective order. Essentially, all the new rules do is establish the procedures for obtaining a particular type of highly restrictive protective order. We do not see any likelihood that the general provisions of 5 2.740 could be construed as overriding the specific requirements of the new rules. The cross-references really are unnecessary.

2. Ex parte communications. Since it is the Commission's position that the type of ex parte proceedings proposed for the handling of" nondisclosure issues are authorized by existing case law as well as by the new regulations themselves, subsection (d) of 9 2.780 would seem to be sufficient to exempt those procedures from the general ex parte prohibitions. If you feel that some reference to the new required, then we suggest that it be put in subsection (d)rather procedures t.oan is insubsection(a)asproposed, cc: Ronald M. Smith, 0IA Robert M. Lazo, ASLBP Bill Ward, 01 Rick Levi, OGC Nita Beeson, Rules & Records, ADM Lawrence J. Chandler, OELD Joseph R. Gray, OELD 0511200186 851115 PDR PR 2 48FR36358 PDR