Date Issued: JUN 27 1990

Case No. 90-ERA-28

In the Matter of

WILLIAM MANNING,
    Complainant

    v.

DETROIT EDISON CORPORATION,
    Respondent

   The above-captioned matter is scheduled for hearing before the undersigned on July 5, 1990 at Detroit, Michigan. On June 25, 1990, the Complainant, by counsel, filed a Motion to Compel Answers to Complainant's First Set of Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents. The Complainant also moved that the submission date for pre-trial exchanges be extended and that the commencement of the hearing be continued.

   On June 26, 1990, the undersigned conducted a conference telephone call with counsel for the respective parties and ruled on certain objections to interrogatories propounded by the Complainant and to certain documents requested of the Respondent by the Complainant. Those rulings, the reasons for which were expressed to the parties during the course of the conference call, are restated as follows:

   The Respondent is directed to respond to Interrogatory 1 and to produce the documents requested in accordance therewith, with the exception of subpart (b)(iii). Respondent's objection as to relevancy is overruled as the information sought is clearly within the subject matter of this proceeding. However, the subject matter of subparagraph (b)(iii) is deemed to be irrelevant as well as unduly burdensome on the Respondent.

   With respect to Complainant's Interrogatories Nos. 2 and 3, the Respondent is directed to answer and to provide the documents requested in such interrogatories, with the exception of paragraphs (a)(iii) in each, for the reasons expressed above relative to Interrogatory No. 1.

   The Respondent is directed to respond to Interrogatory No. 4 only to the extent that it applies to the position of Customer Service Representative. The interrogatory clearly seeks information relevant to the subject matter of the instant proceeding.

   Complainant's Interrogatory No. 5 as stated is deemed to be overly broad. Accordingly, the Respondent is directed to respond to Interrogatory No. 5 only as it pertains to the classification of Customer Service Representative.

   Complainant's Interrogatories 6 and 7 were discussed collectively with the parties. I find that, as stated, the interrogatories propounded are overly broad and would be unduly burdensome on Respondent. Accordingly, the interrogatories are to be answered and information therein provided with regard only to the training records of all incumbent Customer Service Representatives and those who failed the training course for Customer Service Representatives. The personnel files of such persons are to be provided to Complainant's counsel at the Respondent's offices on July 5, 1990 at a time to be agreed upon by the parties.

   Complainant's Interrogatories 9 and 10 seek information relevant to the subject matter of the instant proceeding. Accordingly, to the extent that any such records or documentation exists, the Respondent is to provide such information to Complainant's counsel. The fact that such information may pre-date any disciplinary action against the Complainant is found to be without merit and such objections are overruled in the context of the discovery process.

   The Respondent is directed to provide the information sought in Interrogatory 11 as such information is within the subject matter of this proceeding.

   Complainant's Interrogatories 12, 13 and 14, in essence, seek information contained within the Complainant's personnel file. As such, the information is within the subject matter of this proceeding. The fact that the Complainant may have some or all of such information in his possession does not serve as a basis for the Respondent to avoid furnishing the information

sought. Accordingly, the Respondent is directed to respond to Interrogatories 12, 13 and 14 and/or to provide to Complainant's counsel the Complainant's complete personnel file and to otherwise provide the information sought in such interrogatories.

   By agreement of the parties, Interrogatory 17 is limited to the Fermi II Security Department for such employees who have been reemployed, retrained or transfered. Information sought as to employees who have been trained is stricken.

   The Complainant asserts that as a possible alternative to disciplinary action against him, he should have been referred to the Employee Assistance Program. Accordingly, the information requested in Interrogatory 18, in the context of pre-trial discovery, is within the subject matter of this proceeding. Accordingly, the Respondent is directed to provide such information to the Complainant.

   Pursuant to the foregoing,

   IT IS ORDERED, that the information sought by the Complainant and directed to be produced by the Respondent is to be provided to Complainant's counsel at her office address as soon as practicable. If such information consists of previously published materials, such as handbooks or manuals or published memoranda, the Respondent is directed to provide such information in original form to the Complainant. The Complainant may then make copies of such materials and is then directed to return original materials to the Respondent. Where it is necessary for the Respondent to provide copies of any such materials, the Respondent may charge a reasonable fee to the Complainant for such copying services.

   IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that the hearing in this matter will be commenced on July 5, 1990 at the place designated by previous notice of hearing. However, it is anticipated that no testimony will be adduced during this phase of the hearing. Rather, the hearing will be limited for the purpose of resolving any issues pertaining to discovery already conducted or in process, whether additional discovery will be permitted, the scheduling of depositions, the narrowing of issues and the fixing of dates for compliance with the pre-hearing order heretofore issued in this case and the commencement of the testimonial phase of the hearing. This initial phase of the formal hearing will be recorded by a court reporter and the transcript thereof will be a part of the formal record in this case. The parties should be prepared to bring to the attention of the undersigned any pre-trial motions or disputes between the parties, and any anticipated

problems so as to expedite the testimonial phase of the hearing. Counsel for the respective parties are also advised to explore with their respective clients whether any avenues exist for potential settlement or resolution of the underlying dispute in this matter and to be prepared to inform the undersigned during the hearing of what efforts have been made in that regard.

      DANIEL J. ROKETENETZ
      Administrative Law Judge