On August 25, 2014, the OCC filed a memo contra to Duke’s interlocutory appeal.  The OCC argues that Duke’s appeal is not properly before the Commission under Ohio Administrative Code (O.A.C.) 4901-1-15(A) and/or (B).  The OCC argues that, in the alternative, should the Commission find that the appeal is proper under O.A.C. 4901-1-15, the Commission should dismiss the appeal because Duke has failed to show prejudice from the attorney examiner’s ruling.

IGS Energy also filed a memo contra to Duke’s interlocutory appeal arguing that case law favors eliminating duplicative discovery in favor of allowing the parties to retain the confidential information obtained in this proceeding for use in future proceedings.  IGS Energy also argues that Duke has sufficient resources in the event of a breach and Duke’s argument that it will not be able to monitor the parties’ use of confidential information lacks merit.

In the Commission’s August 27, 2014 Entry, the Commission modified the attorney examiner’s ruling such that Duke’s July 8, 2014 motion for protective order should be granted to the extent the information marked confidential by Duke should be treated confidentially by the recipients until such time as the Commission rules otherwise, and denied to the extent Duke requested the Commission adopt Duke’s Exhibit 3.  The Commission also found that the OCC’s July 18, 2014 motion to compel responses to discovery should be granted and the Commission directed Duke to provide alleged confidential information to the OCC and any other intervenor that has requested the information by the end of the day on August 29, 2014, irrespective of whether the necessary protective agreements have been executed.