ML15027A206

From kanterella
Revision as of 03:08, 15 June 2018 by StriderTol (talk | contribs) (Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Court Order Granting Exelon Motion to Intervene - 1-27-15 - DC Cir 14-1225 - NRDC V NRC
ML15027A206
Person / Time
Site: Limerick Constellation icon.png
Issue date: 01/27/2015
From: Langer M J, Yacisin A
US Federal Judiciary, US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
To:
NRC/OGC
Creedon. meghan
References
14-1225, 1534266, NRC-50-352-LR, NRC-79FR63650
Download: ML15027A206 (1)


Text

United States Court of AppealsFOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT____________No. 14-1225September Term, 2014NRC-50-352-LRNRC-79FR63650Filed On: January 27, 2015 [1534266]Natural Resources Defense Council, Petitionerv.U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission andUnited States of America, Respondents------------------------------Exelon Generation Company, LLC, IntervenorO R D E RUpon consideration of the motion for leave to intervene filed by:Exelon Generation Company, LLC,it is ORDERED that the motion be granted.Circuit Rules 28(d) and 32(a)(2) govern the filing of briefs by intervenors. A schedule forthe filing of briefs will be established by future order. That order will automatically provide briefingonly for intervenors on the side of respondents. Any intervenor(s) intending to participate insupport of petitioner must so notify the court, in writing, within 14 days of the date of this order.Such notification must include a statement of the issues to be raised by the intervenor(s). Thisnotification will allow tailoring of the briefing schedule to provide time for a brief as intervenor onthe side of petitioner. Failure to submit notification could result in an intervenor being denied leaveto file a brief.Intervenors supporting the same party are reminded that they must file a joint brief orcertify to the court why a separate brief is necessary. Intervenors' attention is particularly directedto D.C. Circuit Handbook of Practice and Internal Procedures 38-39 (2013), which describes"unacceptable" grounds for filing separate briefs. Failure to comply with this order may result inthe imposition of sanctions. See D.C. Cir. Rule 38.FOR THE COURT:Mark J. Langer, ClerkBY:/s/Amy YacisinDeputy ClerkUSCA Case #14-1225 Document #1534266 Filed: 01/27/2015 Page 1 of 1