Scribd Logo
Загрузить

Добро пожаловать в Scribd!

  • ALJ's Order Denying Subpoenas

    Загружено:

    Steve Timmer
    18 просмотров5 страниц
    Here's an order from the Administrative Law Judge in the Sandpiper pipeline application denying the subpoenas requested by the intervenor Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy

    Оригинальное название

    ALJ's order denying subpoenas

    Авторское право

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Доступные форматы

    PDF или читайте онлайн в Scribd

    Этот документ был вам полезен?

    Это неприемлемый материал?

    Пожаловаться на этот документ
    Here's an order from the Administrative Law Judge in the Sandpiper pipeline application denying the subpoenas requested by the intervenor Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy

    Авторское право:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Скачайте в формате PDF или читайте онлайн в Scribd
    Отметить как неприемлемый контент
    18 просмотров5 страниц

    ALJ's Order Denying Subpoenas

    Загружено:

    Steve Timmer
    Here's an order from the Administrative Law Judge in the Sandpiper pipeline application denying the subpoenas requested by the intervenor Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy

    Авторское право:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Скачайте в формате PDF или читайте онлайн в Scribd
    Отметить как неприемлемый контент
    из 5
    OAH 8-2500-31260 MPUC Docket No. PL-6668 / CN-13-473 STATE OF MINNESOTA OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS FOR THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION In the Matter of the Application of North TWENTIETH Dakota Pipeline Company, LLC for a PREHEARING ORDER Certificate of Need for the Sandpiper Pipeline Project in Minnesota This matter came before Administrative Law Judge Eric L. Lipman upon the ‘submission of two sets of subpoena requests from the Friends of the Headwaters. The first set of requests seeks responses, under oath, to a list of questions from certain employees of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA). These subpoena requests inquire into the development of the MPCA’s comments to the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission, dated August 21, 2014, and seek responses from the listed agency officials to the rebuttal testimony of Sara Ploetz. Ms. Pleotz is a Senior Environmental Analyst with Enbridge Employee Services, Inc The second set of subpoena requests seeks the presence of certain employees of the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) at the evidentiary hearing, and for those employees to lend their “expertise on the various proposed pipeline locations” during examination by the parties. While MPCA and DNR, like other interested persons, submitted comments to the Commission in this matter, neither agency petitioned to intervene as a party to the contested case. The following parties earlier noted their appearance in this matter. Christina K. Brusven, John E, Drawz and Patrick D.J. Mahlberg, Fredrikson & Byron, P.A.; Kevin Walli and John R. Gasele, Fryberger, Buchanan, Smith & Frederick, P.A.; James D. Watts, Enbridge Energy Limited Partnership; and Randy V. Thompson, Nolan, Thompson & Leighton, appeared on behalf of North Dakota Pipeline Company LLC (NDPC). Byron E. Starns, Brian M. Meloy and Andrew J. Gibbons, Stinson Leonard Street, appeared on behalf of Kennecott Exploration Company (Kennecott). Gerald W. Von Korif, Rinke Noonan, appeared on behalf of the Carlton County Land Stewards (CCLS). Frank Bibeau, Attorney at Law, and Peter Erlinder, International Humanitarian Law Institute, appeared on behalf of Honor the Earth. Joseph Plumer and Jessica Miller, Tribal Attorneys, appeared on behalf of the White Earth Band of Ojibwe (WEBO). Leigh Currie and Kathryn Hoffman, Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy, and Richard Smith and Eileen Shore, Steering Group Members, appeared on behalf of the Friends of the Headwaters (FOH). Benjamin L. Gerber, Manager for Energy Policy, appeared on behalf of the Minnesota Chamber of Commerce (the Minnesota Chamber). Kevin Pranis, Business Representative, appeared on behalf of the Laborers’ District Council of Minnesota and North Dakota (Laborers). Ellen O. Boardman, O'Donoghue and O'Donoghue LLP, and David L. Barnett, Special Representative, appeared on behalf of the United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry of the United States and Canada (United Association). Neil J. Roesler, Vogel Law Firm, and Jon Godfread, Vice President of Governmental Affairs, and Helene Herauf, Government and Regulatory Affairs Specialist, appeared on behalf of the Greater North Dakota Chamber of Commerce (the North Dakota Chamber) Julia E. Anderson and Peter Madsen, Assistant Attorneys General, appeared on behalf of the Minnesota Department of Commerce, Division of Energy Resources, Energy Regulation and Planning (DOC-DER). Linda S. Jensen, Assistant Attorney General, appeared on behalf of the Minnesota Department of Commerce, Energy Environmental Review and Analysis (DOC-EERA). Based upon the submissions of the parties, and upon all of the files in the record, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 1. The requests of the Friends of the Headwaters are DENIED without prejudice to re-filing. 2. FOH may renew its requests if its submissions demonstrate that the testimony sought relates to either: 401301) 2 (a) “specific occurrences in dispute,” to which the witness can testify from personal knowledge;’ or (b) opinions from the listed experts that were earlier-requested by a party to the contested case.” (c) FOH may also renew its requests if its submissions demonstrate the necessity for such an order under the balancing test outlined in Kaufman v. Edelstein, 539 F.2d 811, 822 (2d Cir. 1976) — specifically, whether: i, the witness is a unique expert; ii. it is unlikely that any comparable witness will willingly testify; ii, the sought-after testimony is a previously formed or expressed opinion or a new one; and, iv. the likelihood that the witness will be later asked to testify in similar matters.° 3. Any renewed request shall address how FOH's proffer of the listed witnesses will comply, if at all, with the prehearing disclosure provisions of the Seventeenth Prehearing Order and paragraphs 19 through 22 of the Second Prehearing Order. Dated: January 16, 2015 s/Eric L. Lipman ERIC L. LIPMAN Administrative Law Judge * See generally, Fed. R. Civ. P. 45 (d)(3)(B)(i) (2014) ? Id, See also, NOTES OF ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON RULES—1991 AMENDMENT, F.R. Civ. P. 45 (’A growing problem has been the use of subpoenas to compel the giving of evidence and information by unretained experts. Experts are not exempt from the duty to give evidence, even if they cannot be compelled to prepare themselves to give effective testimony, but compulsion to give evidence may threaten the intellectual property of experts denied the opportunity to bargain for the value of their services.") (citation omitted). 2 Kaufman v. Edelstein, §39 F.2d 811, 822 (2d Cir. 1978); accord, Mitzel v. Employers Ins. of Wausau, 878 F 2d 233, 236 (8th Cir. 1980) [40139/1) 3 MINNESOTA OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS 600 North Robert Street Saint Paul, Minnesota 55101 Mailing Adres: Voice (651) 361-7900, P.O, Box 64620 TTY: (661) 61-7878 St Paul, Minnesota 55164-0620 Fee (1) 535-0800, January 16, 2015 See Attached Service List Re: In the Matter of the Application of North Dakota Pipeline Co., LLC for a Certificate of Need for the Sandpiper Pipeline Project in Minnesota OAH 8-2500-31260 MPUC To All Persons on the Attached Service List: Enclosed and served upon you is the Administrative Law Judge's TWENTIETH PREHEARING ORDER in the above-entitled matter. If you have any questions, please contact my legal assistant Katie Lin at (651) 361-7911 or katie.lin@state.mn.us. Sincerely, ERIC L. LIPMAN Administrative Law Judge ELLKil Enclosure cc: Docket Coordinator STATE OF MINNESOTA OFFICE OF ADMIN! ISTRATIVE HEARINGS, PO BOX 64620 600 NORTH ROBERT STREET ‘ST. PAUL, MI INNESOTA 55164 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE [In the Matter of the Application of North OAH Docket No.: Dakota Pipeline Co., LLC for a Certificate of | 8-2500-31260 Need for the Sandpiper Pipeline Project in Minnesota Katie Lin, certifies that on January 16, 2015 she served the true and correct TWENTIETH PREHEARING ORDER by eService, and U.S. Mail, (in the manner indicated below) to the following individual Elocroake Senice Homey Is: [rasa w_[atcAeoramdnysnos [Oar sfbe Aisne ones20E aoe sanee| Yee | tio hs (ren pivegaonsoard Son eed Sve encore Sev oatind ba [ewerirbrcon [ret ir u unbr [Scant Sew ie ie io aero see rosa ont essen Sev] no —— [tne [en outer aanccy [cone Severo = (in. [rns pene si iow oi Arey Go 6 ——— Tee [esters re [oes taanner sre = fee [peeresgy cn or tie ot tory Gown.006 fone Serv er [prstbes@tenurcon [ita 8s FI ean ea — Wo [em oe exams vc] Wo fsa Toscawneen ca [it Es adore fesse ee he Fer a fat [mer ropeso {ait Fm fextone saves] te Lew! [dines cat [Sai cs Tencane er — vr ae eer — a ina [psstisarmtor ra on Tororsvnsonsdcon

    Вам также может понравиться