STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. RRI ENERGY MID-ATLANTIC POWER HOLDINGS, LLC et al

Filing 332

ORDER/OPINION THAT DEFENDANT METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY'S AMENDED MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS #270 FILED ON OCTOBER 5, 2012 IS GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. SIGNED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE HENRY S. PERKIN ON 1/24/13. 1/24/13 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND E-MAILED.(ky, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
_______________________________
STATE OF NEW JERSEY,
:
:
Plaintiff,
:
:
v.
:
:
RPI ENERGY MID-ATLANTIC :
POWER HOLDINGS, LLC,
:
et al.,
:
:
Defendants,
:
:
and
:
:
STATE OF CONNECTICUT,
:
:
Intervenor-Plaintiff,
:
:
v.
:
:
RRI ENERGY MID-ATLANTIC :
POWER HOLDINGS, LLC,
:
et al.,
:
:
Intervenor-Defendants.
:
_______________________________

CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:07-cv-05298

ORDER
AND NOW, this

24th

day of January, 2013, upon consideration of Defendant

Metropolitan Edison Company’s Amended Motion to Compel Production of Documents (Dkt.
No. 270) filed on October 5, 2012, Plaintiff New Jersey’s Letter Response (Dkt. No. 273) filed
on October 22, 2012, Defendant Metropolitan Edison Company’s Letter Reply (Dkt. No. 275)
filed on November 1, 2012, Plaintiff New Jersey’s Motion for Leave to File a Surreply
Memorandum (Dkt. No. 297) filed on November 19, 2012, Defendant Metropolitan Edison

1

Company’s Letter Response to Plaintiff’s Surreply Memorandum (Dkt. No. 301) filed on
November 20, 2012, and for the reasoning set forth in the foregoing Memorandum;
IT IS ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED in part 1 and DENIED in part.

BY THE COURT:
/s/ Henry S. Perkin
HENRY S. PERKIN
United States Magistrate Judge

1

Defendant’s Motion to Compel is granted only to the extent of the following documents, appearing in
Attachment A to Plaintiff’s Reply (Dkt. No. 273):
1.
2.
3.
4.

NJUD-8593 (Dkt. No. 273-1 at 5)
NJUD-8624 (Dkt. No. 273-1 at 5)
NJUD-8627-8628 (Dkt. No. 273-1 at 6)
DEP PRIV 00015596 (Dkt. No. 273-1 at 49)

As Defendant has withdrawn its challenges based on attorney-client and work-product privileges, the
Motion to Compel was analyzed for issues relating solely to Plaintiff’s claim of the deliberative process privilege.
(Dkt. 275 at 405). Of the four documents listed above, Plaintiff should turn such documents over to Defendant to
the extent they contain severable factual information (i.e. statistical information and records of field investigations).

2