ML20092H800

Submits Partial Response to .Transparent Effort Not Being Made to Stall Proceeding.Method of Responding to Discovery Request Prohibits Orderly Discovery of Case. Certificate of Svc Encl.Related Correspondence

ML20092H800
Person / Time
Site:	Byron
Issue date:	06/20/1984
From:	Whicher J BUSINESS & PROFESSIONAL PEOPLE FOR THE PUBLIC INTERES, WHICHER, J.M.
To:	Mark Miller COMMONWEALTH EDISON CO., ISHAM, LINCOLN & BEALE
References
OL, NUDOCS 8406260276
Download: ML20092H800 (3)

Text

f,-r ygt, , e

. . .msca 3

or BPI b Business and Professional People for the Public Interest,

(

r..

[s . 109 North

Dearborn Street,

Suite 1300 e Chicago, Illinois 60602 e

,,2-Telephone: (312) 641-5570" j

June 20, 1984 N25 p3;g

{

_ -xf-  :

w"ps Michael I. Miller

• Isham, Lincoln & Beale Three First National Plaza 52nd Floor Chicago, Illinois 60602 Re: Commonwealth Edison Company (Byron Station Units 1 and 2)

Docket Nos. 50-454 and 50-455

Dear Mike:

This letter is in partial response to yours of June 19.

I wish to make it perfectly clear to you that I am not en-gaged in "a transparent, effort to stall this oroceeding."

Rather, I have pointed out to you that your method of responding to my discovery requests is making it virtually impossible for me to conduct orderly, reasoned and responsible discovery of your case and concomitant preparation of our own.

A good example is in the letter I received -- hours be-fore the receipt of your letter -- from your legal assistant, which is attached. As that letter makes clear, new documents seem to appear daily at your office in spite of your prior statements that all documents have been produced.

Another example is the interrogatory responses provided to me at 5:30 p.m. on June 19. Mr. Becker indicated he might have some difficulty getting them signed today; I offered to accept his signature as binding the company. It is my under-standing that the company does not consider itself bound by the answers served on me today but instead will submit formal answers at some future date.

Detectors James M Alter Staunion O Flanders Byron S Meller Staff Lucy B. Ascob Herbert B Freed Elena B. Mulcahy Alexander Pohkoff Juhe M Kuzera James W Ashley hesedent #' b*##

aT wman na d G y sks A a nder Po koff Juhan L 8erman Douglass W Cassel, Jr. Martin C. Hausman Jeremy Warburg Russo Douglass W Cassel, Jr. Jeanne L. Yeidel Rathard P. Kipttart Frana Cecero Christie Hefner Alan Saks General Counsel Admemstratere Assestant Dora Wi6 teams Mantyn D Clancy Peter Hunt Bettylu K. Saltzman John R. Hammell Past Presidents wce Pressdents George Cohan Arnold B Kanter Dianne L. Sautte' Mary Galloway James Donald R. Dann Joseph Kellenan Bell Senge' ***

Charles M. Matt. S, Ehzabeth L. Lassar Elhot Lehman Leon M. Despres Elhot Lehman Cecil J. Troy Howard A. Learner Finsw Luis E. Diaz Perez Rotert B Lifton Robert J. Vollen Robert B Lstton Jane M. Whacher Sylvia H St.neinfeld Carol Y Farwell Michael D Maitz James O webb pfro,,,,,

Secretary Steve Fitter E Hoy McConnellil Morton Weisman Leon D Finney John L. McKnight Wayne W Whalen 8406260276 840620 PDR ADOCK 05000454 Q PDR c)r

('

,. 9 Michael I. Miller June 20, 1984 Further, because you will not provide a formal state-have been ment of whether produced, and aallformal

. documents within statement a category' of your objec tion 4 you leave little choice but to go before the Board. At our discovery meeting in May you indicated you would assert privilege objections to certain requests; I consider those objections waived since.no formal notification of them has been'made.

Finally, we have not (and cannot until a review of your discovery responses) decided on whether we will call witnesses. The name of the technical consultant who will review technical documents was provided today to Mr. Becker.

This is, of course, the first time any such request has been made of me. Accordingly, I explicitly deny any implications that I'am hiding,our case from you -- a more appropriate description is that we are awaiting discovery of your case to see what we believe to be the most reasoned approach to our own case.

Thank you for providing oral answers-through Mr. Becker on the second set of discovery. I expect you will be serving formal responses shortly, since some of the informal ones were not complete.

Very truly yours, 1 -

M*h ( M LQ Jane M. Whicher JMW/amh cc: Service List

• 4 m.

.- .. -a. .-.

ISHAM, LINCOLN & BEALE COUNSELORS AT t AW THREE FIRST NAYlONAL PtAZA CHICAGO. ILUNOIS 60602 EDWARD S f$ HAW. 1872 1902 WA$HtNGTON OFFICE ROBERT T LINCOLN, 1872-1883 g'5 1t20 CONNECTICUT AVENUE.N W <

wumG ScAu, ines iw3 19 June # 1984 SUin =

WASHINGTON. D C. 20036 l

4 202 833 9730 l l

Ms. Jane Whicher, BPI, 109 North

Dearborn,

Chicago, Illinois I

Dear Jane:

l Attached you should find copies of the Nonconformance re-ports that. Josh Levin-selected on Friday of last week, docu-ment numbers 2606-3613. Additionally, I have included other documents which were produced to Mr. Levin and which he chose to have copied, 3614-3688.

Please be advised that a small number of other documents i have, since Friday, come to light in our offices, and will be  !

proferred for examination if you so desire. I will await hea-ring from you or Mr. Levin on this matter.

If you have any other questions, please do not hesitate to call me.

,/ Sihcerely,

( f/L. 7-h ~f John Gayley, ,

Lhgal Assistant l l

cc: Mike Wilcove j Bruce Becker 1

l l

t S

, i