20110207Motion for Protective Order to Stay Discovery.pdf

LoVIGER I KAUF LL
825 NE Mulmomah . Suite 925
Portand, OR 97232-2150
. offce [phone]
fax [phone]
Keet E. KaKauf~w.co
Februar 4,2011
VI U.S. PRIORITY MAL
Jean D. Jewell, Secreta
Idaho Public Utilties Commission
472 W Washington Street
Boise, ID 83702-5983
Re: Case No. PAC-E-1O-08
XRG, Complainant, vs.
PACIFICORP dba ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER, Defendant
Dear Ms. Jewell:
Enclosed for fiing in the above-captioned docket are an original and seven (7) copies of
ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER'S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER TO STAY
DISCOVERY.
An extra copy of this cover letter is enclosed. Please date stamp the extra copy and retur it to
me in the envelope provided.
Than you in advance for your assistance.
ßKenneth E. aufman
cc: PAC-E-1O-08 Service List
Enclosures
Mark C. Moench
Daniel E. Solander
Rocky Mountain Power
201 South Main Street, Suite 2300
Salt Lake City, Utah 84111
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
mark.moench~pacifcorp.com
danie1.solander~pacificorp .com
r:
ion fEB -7 PH 2: 03
Jeffey S. Lovinger
Kenneth E. Kaufmann
Lovinger Kaufmann LLP
825 NE Multnomah, Suite 925
Portland, Oregon 97232
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
10viger~1k1aw .com
kaufmann~lk1aw.com
Attorneys for Defendant Rocky Mountain Power
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMSSION
XRG-DP-7, XRG-DP-8, XRG-DP-9, XRG-
DP-lO, LLCs, Case No. PAC-E-10-08
Complainant,
ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER'Sv. MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER
TO STAY DISCOVERY
PACIFICORP, DBA ROCKY
MOUNTAIN POWER, EXPEDITED REVIEW REQUESTED
Defendant.
Pursuant to IDAPA Rule 31.01.01.056, PacifiCorp, dba Rocky Mountain Power
("Rocky Mountain Power" or the "Company"), respectfully moves for a protective order
partially staying discovery pending resolution of the Company's motion for summary
judgment. Because the Company's responses to XRG's Third Production Request are due
February 15, 2011, the Company requests expedited review and decision on this motion.
The parties have conferred and XRG opposes a stay of discovery.
1
ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER'S MOTION
FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER TO STAY DISCOVERY
I. INTRODUCTION
The Company has fied a motion for summary judgment asking the Commssion to
fid that XRG is not entitled to pre-March 16, 2010 published avoided cost rates as a matter
of law. XRG has served the Company with a third set of discovery requests (Requests for
Production Nos. 24-63) which the Company must answer by February 15, 2011. The
Company intends to fie its response to Requests for Producton Nos. 53-63 on or before
February 15, 2011. The fist 29 questions (Requests for Producton Nos. 24-52) seek
information that is burdensome to produce and which is not relevant to resolving any of the
issues raised in the Company's motion for summary judgment. The Company therefore
moves to stay all discovery, except the Company's response to Requests for Production
Nos. 53-63,1 unti after the Commission rules on the Company's pending motion for
summary judgment.
IT. APPLICABLE LA ~
Rule 221.05 of the Commission's Rules incorporates Rule 26 of the Idaho Rules of
Civil Procedure (LR.C.P.) to provide discovery procedure not addressed by the
Commssion's Rules? The Commission's Rules do not address limitig or preventing
discovery through a protectve order. Therefore, LR.C.P. 26(c) controls any requests
limitig discovery by a protectve order before the Commission, and provides:
Upon motion by a party or by the person from whom discovery is sought, and
for good cause shown, the court in which the acton is pending...may make
any order which justice requires to protect a party or person from annoyance,
embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense, including that the
discovery not be had.
1 While Requests for Production Nos. 53-63 are also not relevant to the issues in the Company's motion for
summar judgment, the Company anticipates that responding to them wil not be overly burdensome.
2 IDAPA Rule 31.01.01.221.05; See Rosebud v. PaeifCorp, IPUC Case No. UPL-E-92-6; Order No. 25784, 1994
Ida. PUC LEXIS 135, *1-2 (1994) (following I.R.C.P. 26 with respect to discovery).
2
ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER'S MOTION
FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER TO STAY DISCOVERY
il. APPLICABLE FACTS
XRG fied a complaint on July 29, 2010, seeking grandfathered avoided cost rates.
On January 11, 2011, XRG served the Company with a discovery request consistig of
40 questions, attached hereto as Exhibit A. This was XRG's third set of interrogatories
served upon the Company in this complaint proceeding. Due to the size of this set of
requests, the Company sought and obtained XRG's consent to an extension of time to
object or respond to the requests. The Company's responses are due February 15, 2011. The
Company fied a motion for summary judgment concurrently with this motion. The motion
for summary judgment asks the Commssion to deny XRG grandfathered rates as a matter
of law because: (A) the written communications between XRG and the Company from
January 2009 though March 2010 demonstrate that XRG did not actively negotiate a
power purchase agreement prior to the rate change;3 (B) XRG's plans to transmit output to
the Company's system were insuffciently mature to establish entitlement to grandfathered
rates;4 and (C) XRG waited too long to fie its complaint, and therefore is not entitled to
grandfathered rates.5
IV. ARGUlNT
LR.C.P. 26(c) provides that discovery may be limited for good cause shown to
"protect a party or person from...undue burden or expense." In applying Rule 26(c)
protectve orders, the court has broad discretion to limit discovery and to promote
3 XRG-DP-7, XRG-DP-8, XRG-DP-9, XRG-DP-lo, LLCs v. PacifCorp, DBA Rocky Mountain Power, IPUC Case
No. PAC-E-10-08, Rocky Mountain Power's Motion for Summary Judgment § IV(A) (submitted February 4,
2011) (hereinafter "Motion for Summary Judgment").
4 ¡d. § IV(B).
5 ¡d. § IV(C).
3
ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER'S MOTION
FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER TO STAY DISCOVERY
effciency.6 The United States Supreme Court has emphasized that courts admiistering
Federal Rule of Civi Procedure 26(c) should not hesitate to exercise their authority to limit
unnecessary discovery in order to prevent abuse and promote effciency.?
Grantig a protective order to stay discovery pending resolution of a dispositive
motion for summary judgment is appropriate where the discovery information sought is not
relevant to the issues presented in the motion for summary judgment.8 Allowig irelevant
discovery would be both unduly burdensome to the part responding to the discovery
request and would harm judicial effciency.9 Grantig a stay of discovery is appropriate here
because none of the information sought by XRG in Requests for Producton Nos. 24-52
relates to the issues raised by the Company's motion for summary judgment. Requests for
Production Nos. 24-52 relate exclusively to actons the Company took to evaluate whether
the Company's system could accommodate XRG's request to deliver 70 MW at Company's
Brady Substation. As explained below, the Company's internal evaluation of XRG's
requests has no bearing on the thee theories the Company advances in its motion for
summary judgment. Furthermore, some of XRG's requests are partcularly burdensome in
both depth and breadth.1O Rocky Mountain Power would be unduly burdened if required to
respond to XRG's request, especially when the information requested by XRG is irelevant
to resolving the issues raised by the Company's motion for summary judgment.
6 Avila v. Wahlquist, 126 Idaho 745, 749 (1995); Selkirk v. Forn, 134 Idaho 98, 104-05 (2000).
7 Herber v. Lando, 441 U.S. 153, 177(1979).
8 Avila, 126 Idaho at 749; see Selkirk, 134 Idaho 98, ios (2000).
9 Id.
10 See e.g. Requests for Producton Nos. 4452 ofXRG's Third Production Request, Exhibit A at 10-13.
4
ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER'S MOTION
FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER TO STAY DISCOVERY
A. Summar Judgment Theory 1: XRG did not perfect its entitlement to
grandfathered rates because it did not actvely negotiate the term of a power
purchase agreement.
The Company's motion for summary judgment states that it is entitled to judgment
as a matter of law because XRG has failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact
demonstratig that XRG actively negotiated the terms of a power purchase agreement.11 It
is well setted that a qualifg facilty is not entitled to grandfathered rates unless it has
actvely negotiated a power purchase agreement. This includes presenting the purchasing
utiity with an offer that can be interpreted as a binding commtment to sell power .12 None
of the information sought by XRG Requests for Producton Nos. 24-52 addresses whether
XRG actvely negotiated the terms of a PP A or presented the Company with an offer that
could be interpreted as a binding commitment to sell power. Furtermore, XRG has
admitted that Exhibit A fied in the Company's motion for summary judgment contains the
complete record of written communications between the parties, though July 27, 2010,
regarding XRG's request for four power purchase agreementsP There is nothing more to
discover regarding this issue.
B. Sumar Judgment Theory 2: XRG's plan to deliver output to the
Company's system were inadequate to establish entitlement to grandfathered
rates.
The Company's motion for summar judgment states that it is entitled to judgment
as a matter of law because XRG has failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact
11 Motion for Summary Judgment at Part IV(A).
12 Island Power Co. v. Utah Power & Light Co., IPUC Case No. UPL-E-93-4, Order No. 25647; 1994 Ida. PUC
LEXIS 92; Cogen Power II, Inc. v. PacifCorp, IPUC Case No. UPL-E-94-1, Order No. 25638; 1994 Ida. PUC
LEXIS 89.
13 See Exhibit A to Rocky Mountain Power's Motion for Summary Judgment at 1 (XRG's response to Rocky
Mountain Power's Production Request No.2, in which XRG admits that Exhibit A contains the entire record of
correspondences from Januar 21,2009 to July 29, 2010).
5
ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER'S MOTION
FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER TO STAY DISCOVERY
demonstratig that it has transmission contracts or even a viable plan for transmitting
output to Rocky Mountain Power.I4 In Portland General Electric Co. v. Oregon Energy Co.,
OPUC Docket No. UC 35, Order No. 98-238 (1998), the Public Utiity Commssion of
Oregon held that a wheeling agreement with the intervening utiity was a precondition to
the purchasing utiity's obligation to purchase power from a qualifing facilty. A viable
transmission and interconnecton proposal is also required to present a power sales proposal
of suffcient maturity to support a claim for grandfathered rates. None of the information
sought by XRG Requests for Production Nos. 24-52 has any nexus to how XRG intended to
transmit its output to the Company across electic systems owned by Bonnevile Power
Administration, Idaho Power Company, and Raft River Electic Cooperative. Any
information the Company would produce in response to Requests Nos. 24-52 is irrelevant to
resolving this issue.
c. SUmmar Judgment Theory 3: XRG waited too long to fie its complait, and
therefore is not entitled to grandfathered rates.
The Company's motion for summary judgment states that it is entitled to judgment
as a matter of law because XRG has failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact
demonstratig that, prior to the March 16, 2010 rate change, XRG signed a PPA or fied a
meritorious complaint seekig pre-March 16, 2010 rates.I5 A qualifing facilty seekig
grandfathered rate treatment must demonstrate that it signed a PP A or fied a meritorious
complaint prior to the rate change.I6 In the alternative, the Company argues that XRG's
14 Motion for Summary Judgment at Secton IV(B).
15 Motion for Summary Judgment § N(C).
16 A. w: Brown Co., Inc. v Idaho Power Co., 121 Idaho 812,817 (1992).
6
ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER'S MOTION
FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER TO STAY DISCOVERY
complaint is barred as untimely by.the doctine oflaches.17 None of the information sought
by XRG Requests for Producton Nos. 24-52, would demonstrate that it had either a signed
PP A, fied a meritorious complaint prior to the rate change, met an exception to the rule
requiring a signed PPA or a timely complaint, or avoided application of the doctrine of
laches.
Because any information the Company would produce in response to XRG's
Requests for Producton Nos. 24-52 is irelevant to resolvig Company's motion for
summary judgment, the Company asks the Commission to grant a stay of discovery
pending resolution of the Company's motion for summar judgment. In addition to
Requests for Producton Nos. 24-52, the Company requests that the Commission's
protectve order stay all other discovery by either party (except for the Company's response
to XRG Requests for Producton Nos. 53-63), pending resolution of the motion for
summary judgment. Issuing a stay in discovery proceedings wil allow both parties relief
from discovery and allow the parties and the Commission to focus on the issues raised by
the Company's motion for summary judgment.
17 Motion for Summary Judgment § IV(C).
7
ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER'S MOTION
FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER TO STAY DISCOVERY
v. CONCLUSION
WHEREFORE, Rocky Mountain Power respectlly requests that the Commission
grant a protective order to stay discovery pending resolution of the Company's motion for
summary judgment. Dated this i¡'I day of February 2011.
Respectlly submitted,
~USB2284 -
Daniel E. Solander USB 11467
Rocky Mountain Power
Kenneth E. Kaufmann, OSB 982672
Jeffey S. Loviger, OSB 960147
Loviger Kaufmann LLP
Attorns for Rocky Mountain Power
8
ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER'S MOTION
FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER TO STAY DISCOVERY
Case No. PAC-E-l0-08
Rocky Mountain Power's Motion for Protective Order to Stay Discovery
EXHIBIT A
XRG's Third Production Request to Rocky Mountain Power
(January 11,2011)
Exhibit A, Page 1 of 18
Case No. PAC-E-10-08
Rocky Mountain Power's Motion for Protective Order to Stay Discovery
)
)
)
))
)
)
)
VS.
Exhibit A, Page 2 of 18
Case No. PAC-E-10-08
Rocky Mountain Power's Motion for Protective Order to Stay Discovery
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 25
REQUESlFOR PRODUCTION NO. 27
t '~,
Exhibit A, Page 3 of 18
Case No. PAC-E-1o-08
Rocky Mountain Power's Motion for Protective Order to Stay Discovery
(d)
can be
an OASIS website
actual trmission
ding transmission avaiabilty
ty.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 28
. es~ Attachment
.yMountain
s or market tractions
C
(b) Has PaciñCorp reserved capacity on Path C for each oftheXRG:proJects?
d for the 4 XRG projects, please state the datePacifCorp reserved
su,pPQl1ing evidence. .
necessa capaqity Oi\PtlcifCorp's system.
(el Pleae identifY ailenti
capacity on Pat C prior to.re
ìVhic
for use for each of
d the available
REUEST FORPRODUCTIQN NO. 29
Reference Rocky Mou
XRG 5 (Ròcky Mo .
'5 First Proçlu~tion Request, ArthmeJlt
).
capacity on
for entities other
capacity and provide supporting evidence
Page 3~ THIRDPRODUCTION
TO ROCKY MOUN'tAINP
LAINANTS
Exhibit A, Page 4 of 18
Case No. PAC-E.1O-D8
Rocky Mountain Power's Motion for Protective Order to Stay Discovery
(b) Did PacifiCo
betw~n
Tramission reserve tranmission capacity on Pat C at any time
d September 21, 20 i 0 for entities other th XRG? Plea. identify
mission reserved capacity and provide supportg evidence
.servation.
ion reseed capaçity
and the date.
ence demonstting lqe reervation;
(d) with
ansmission was not av ..118
Didthe trmissioiiconstrnt identifed by ROCky Mountain Power to XRG until September2 i. 201Ô maret trang activities,?Please explain wheìlan an impact
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 31
wry into
"Suggtlst PP A be contingent upon receiving Netork ResQurce sta").
(Pleaseadm
the requested
atRockyMou
óntingent upon t
did not offer the
twork Resoce s
XROto
nloXRGto
(c)If deny.rovidê supportng evidence.
4 - THJl PRODUCTION REQUEST OF COMPLAINANTS
OCKY MOUNTAIN POWER - PAC-E..l 0-08
Exhibit A, Page 5 of 18
Case No. PAC-E-10-08
Rocky Mountain Power's Motion for Protective Order to Stay Discovery
Exhibit A, Page 6 of 18
Case No. PAC-E-10-08
Rocky Mountain Power's Motion for Protective Order to Stay Discovery
REQQST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 34
Reference Rocky Mountain Power:s Responses to XRG Requests.No. 5 and No. 16.
emails between Jim Parouw and John Younie constitute studiesat more
(b) Mr. Parouw authorized to grt orservce arket function employe1\
Mr. Younie list as Rmak~tfuction employee? .
trsmission
Gri~woldor
w consult with Paci:fCorp Tranmission on th
"eVidence, or stae the name of the p~rson who ca testify as to the aner.
(d)lin
(l,) Please identify and provide theoorrspondence prior to this letter in which PacifCor
notifi~d XRG of the oPton to conduct system impact studies tc) detemiine trsmission
Exhibit A, Page 7 of 18
Case No. PAC-E-1o-08
Rocky Mountain Power's Motion for Protective Order to Stay Discovery
including the cost of the
o prior communicati
and how XRG could request PacifiCorp complete the
state so.
Pleas admit or deny that the Section 32. i of the OA IT sttes, "Aft
. determine on a non-qiscriminatory
(e)
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 36
projeèts . actice #24 would(a) adt or deny that fofthe off-sys
also apply.
PleåSe admit or deny that a trsmission cusømer must followthe~process outlined in
29.2 ofPaçifiCorp's OAIT todesÏgnate a netork resource.
Please admit or deny that Section 29:2 0
'sOATTwould apply to
a network resource.
r to enter into contrts with t
mission servce under PartUI oftbe tarff Why or why.
ntigent upon
- TH PRODUCTI
YMOUNTAINP
ST OF COMPLAINANTS
-10-08
Exhibit A, Page 8 of 18
Case No. PAC-E-10-08
Rocky Mountain Power's Motion for Protective Order to Stay Discovery
RODUCTION NO. 38
What.isPaeifiCorp's c&rs po.Hey with
ceunder
a contract.
to executing a PURP A contrct
III of the taft Pleas provide
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 39
-9 and A- 19 to Rocky MountainPowerts FitstJ?roducûon Reque$tto
set out in S~tiòn 32 ofPaciRÇ~
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 41
Reference PacifCorp's OATT, Par U.
sted PTP firm transmission seice to wheel the 70MW
a point in the Uta load center, how would PacifCorp.hav
(b) In
dae of the.
vailable capacity, would PacitiCorp have co,nsidered the ~en.cement
~~.'-~
8 - THIRD PRODUCTION
OCKY.MOUNJAlN POWER-
ST OF COMPLAlNANS
-E~lO~08,
Exhibit A, Page 9 of 18
Case No. PAC-E-1Q-08
Rocky Mountain Powets Motion for Protective Order to Stay Discovery
(c) Would
line on
some other date?
ave considered the upgr
encement date was in J
grades scheduled for the Populus to
dates: Janua 21,2009;
of this request.
(b)e provide the date of completion and the resulting.
pgrades Will be
comp
(c) entity resetved.any of the capacity that will.be (or is) made available from the
upgra
( For each of the PacifC
er the peri;nwa awa
of this request
XRG Request No. 19, pleae indicate
e to Páth C on each ofthe dates Usted in (a)
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 43
Reference ExhbitA-19 of Rocky 'Mountan Power's Firs1prQnuction Request to ARG.
(b) Did Mt; Griswold consider the proposed upgrades to Path C when he sent ths email toXRG? Why or why not? .. .
Page 9 - THIRD PRODUCTON REQUEST OF COMPLAINANTS
TO ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER -; PAC-E-IO';08
Exhibit A, Page 10 of 18
Case No. PAC-E-10-08
Rock Mountain Power's Motion for Protective Order 10 Stay Discovery
Exhibit A, Page 11 of 18
Case No. PAC-E-1D-08
Rocky Mountain Power's Motion for Protective Order to Stay Discovery
48
Exhibit A, Page 12 of 18
Case No. PAC-E-10-Q8
Rocky Mountain Power's Motion for Protective Order 10 Slay Discovery
NO. 49
Please provide all discovery requests and responses generated in P AC-E-l 0-07 regardi
Populus-Tenni ect. Please also provide all confdential testimony and exhib'
that case on the -Terinal project.
REQUEST .FOR PRODUCTION NO. 50
gotiations with nG on the dates listed in the Anser iI8,
Please explain the. usefuness of .ot be used for new
cts. Who will tl
ewldao resources
pany's oVlfngenerating resources or
(d) Is the 700 MW Path C upgrde fuly.sbscribed? Reference Rebuttl Testiinonyof
Darell Gerrard. CaeNo. PAC-E-JO-07, p. 17 (November 16,2010).
(e) Plea
decision to c
Darell Gerar,
by
Reference Re
. PAC-E;.lO-07. p. 15 (November 16,2010).
P e 12 - THIRl PRODUCTION
ROCKY MOVNTAIN POWER ~
T OF COMPLAINANTS
-10-Q8
Exhibit A, Page 13 of 18
Case No. PAC-E-10-08
Rocky Mountain Power's Motion for Protective Order to Stay Discoveiy
RE UEST FOR PRODUCTI
the date of this orectedand If
FERC clarfying that southwest Idao is no longer a
(b)
thepe
when iffiled
must be sited
forecaste
it wouldqnly provide the
8.
Pleas admit or deny tht, on or about October 15, 2010. the XRG LLCs offere
the rates in 0
QuId agree to accept n.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 54
Please admit
fi
Mountain Power is able to accept delivery under conditional
4 XRG QFs at Brady.
Please identify allfutaces in which Rocky Mountain Power ha agreed to accept conditional
under long Pleasefo11 te Rocky
entity
to commence delivery), generaor-typ, entity deliverig
UEST OF COMPLAINANTS
E-10-08
Exhibit A. Page 14 of 18
Case No. PAC-E-10-08
Rock Mountain Power's Motion for Protective Order to Stay Discovery
energy, and description of the natu of the agreement, e.g. long term PPA, short term market
purchas, etc.
T FOR PRODUCTIO
Please admit or deny that Rocky Mountain Power requested to stay discovery in this case
about Octobe 18,2010, in order to respond to XRG's agreement to accept theOr;
rates.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 57
PI
discovery freeze
lifted the
(a)
to the
Order No. 3.0744.
offere to agrë
. for the rates in
(c)
standard
lai why discovery is necessa to understad that XRG is willng to enter into
PAs con' rates in Order No. 31025.
ountan Power wil not.provide standard PPAs for the
31025..
the availabilty of the published rates in Order
ing of the complait in this case? When did
e that th availabilty of the rates ~y chage?
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTIO,i NO. 59
avoided cost rates in effeetfor the time
of those rates during the same tiineperiods -
THIR P:RÙDUCt
MOUNTAIN POWER :-
OF COMPLAINANTS
8
Exhibit A, Page 15 of 18
Case No. PAC-E-10-08
Rocky Mountain Power's Motion for Protective Order to Stay Discovery
for different QF resour
n file supporting the. resp
appaent decision to reject the 0
How did the
REQUESTFOR PRODUCTION NO. 61
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 62
Reference Rock:y Mountain Powert s co
Does Rocky Mountain Power still support these criteria, or have its criteria chaged?
Did the Commission approve of Rocky Mountan Power's criteria in Case No. IPC-E-IO-
or some less onerous reqiiirement?
(c) Admit or de
comments with.
tht XRO meets Rocky Mountain Power's criteria described in its
to the rates in Order No. 31025.
Please ex lain howXRG has failed to meet Rocky Mounta Power's test with
31025. inXRO's Complaints
d to th
QUEST OF COMPLAINANTS
-PAC-E-10-08
Exhibit A, Page 16 of 18
Case No. PAC-E-1D-08
Rock Mountain Powr's Motion for Protective Order to Stay Discovery
Exhibit A, Page 17 of 18
Case No. PAC-E-1D-08
Rocky Mountain Power's Motion for Protective Order to Stay Discovery
Exhibit A, Page 18 of 18
Case No. PAC-E-10-08
Rock Mountain Power's Motion for Protective Order to Stay Discovery
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that, on the.4th day of February, 2011, I served a true. and
correct copy of the foregoing ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER 'SMOTION FOR
PROTECTIVE ORDER TO STAY DISCOVERY in Case No. PAC-E-10-08 on the
following named persons/entities by U.S. Priority Mail, properly addressed with
postage prepaid:
Jean Jewell
Commission Secretary
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
472 W Washington Street
Boise,ID 83702-5983
(U.S. Priority Mail)
Peter J. Richardson
Richardson & O'Leary, PLLC
PO Box 7218
Boise, ID 83707
(U. S. Priority Mail)
Mark C. Moench
Rocky Mountain Power
201 South Main Street, Suite 2300
Salt Lake City, UT 84111
(U.S. Priority Mail)
Gregory M. Adams
Richardson & O'Leary, PLLC
PO Box 7218
Boise, ID 83707
(U.S. Priority Mail)
Daniel E. Solander
Rocky Mountain Power
201 South Main Street, Suite 2300
Salt Lake City, UT 84111
(U.S. Priority Mail)
DATED this t¡tf day of Februar, 201 1.
LOVINGER KAUFMANN LLP
;t~ -KennethRfman
Attorney for Rocky Mountain Power