Armstrong nuke site owner wants judge to force activist to comply with subpoena
Nuclear waste site owner Babcock & Wilcox wants a federal court judge to affirm a ruling ordering Leechburg environmental activist Patty Ameno to comply with a March subpoena to provide documents.
The documents relate to Ameno's work with Motley Rice, the law firm representing Kiski Valley resident Michelle McMunn. McMunn and other plaintiffs claim that radioactive emissions from two former nuclear fuel plants in Apollo and Parks caused cancer in nearby residents.
Defendants B&W and Atlantic Richfield operated the plants.
B&W filed the request on Tuesday in federal court in Pittsburgh in response to Ameno's Oct. 31 objection to the federal magistrate judge's order.
Motley Rice is defending Ameno, whom the firm hired in the winter of 2010-11 as a clerk or paralegal to assist potential plaintiffs with paperwork. She is not a plaintiff in the McMunn case.
In the Tuesday filing, B&W reiterated claims that Ameno destroyed evidence and is “cloaking her conduct with improper claims of attorney-client privilege.”
B&W alleges Ameno destroyed documents, specifically emails with plaintiffs and invoices with Motley Rice, in violation of the March subpoena; it disputes Ameno's claim that some of the documents are protected by attorney-client privilege and that she and Motley Rice “engaged in obstructive conduct” at a Sept. 5 deposition.
Motley Rice attorney Jonathan Orent did not return calls seeking comment.
He previously told the Valley News Dispatch that Ameno fully complied with obligations under the subpoena.
Jodi Weigand is a staff writer for Trib Total Media. She can be reached at 724-226-4702 or firstname.lastname@example.org.
More Valley News Dispatch
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments â either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.