87-ERA-23

In the Matter of

CHARLES HILL, et al.,
    Complainants,

    v.

TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY,
    Respondent.

   On June 6, 1991, Complainants' counsel filed an Emergency Motion to Reopen the Record in this Matter Based on Newly Discovered Evidence That Was Improperly Withheld by Respondent Tennessee Valley Authority. On June 20, 1991, Respondent filed its response in opposition to the motion.

   The newly discovered evidence attached to the motion is a cony of an unsigned, draft report of an investigation conducted by the Wage and Hour Division, U.S. Department of Labor, in the above captioned case. Complainants perceive significant discrepancies between certain findings and conclusions in the draft report and testimony given by three witnesses at the hearing of this case. They seek an opportunity for further cross-examination of these witnesses, as well as the opportunity to call the Wage and Hour Division Compliance Officer and a former TVA manager.

   I am convinced that Complainants' motion to reopen the record must be denied. Complainants have not found new admissible evidence. They have found a paper which suggests possibilities of impeachment on collateral issues. Such possibilities do not provide a sufficient reason to reopen the record four months after the filing of extensive briefs by both parties. cf. Baynum v. Chesapeake & Ohio Ry, 456 F.2d 658, 662

(6th Cir. 1972); Scutieri v. Paige, 808 F.2d 785, 793 (11th Cir. 1987).

   Accordingly, Complainants, motion to reopen the record is denied. Complainants' request of an opportunity to file a reply brief is also denied.

       NICODEMO DE GREGORIO
       Administrative Law Judge

DATED: June 26, 1991
Washington, D.C.

NDG/sjn