DATE: MAR 31 1992

CASE NO.: 91-ERA-4

In the Matter of

LINDA PORTER,
    Complainant,

    v.

BROWN & ROOT, INC., AND
TEXAS UTILITIES,
    Respondent.

   On May 16, 1991 Complainant filed a Motion to Compel Respondents Texas Utilities and Brown & Root to Provide Responsive Answers to Interrogatories and to Produce and Identify all Documents Responsive to Her Request for Production of Documents, and Motion for Protective order. Respondents filed their Joint Opposition to Complainant's Motion for Protective Order, but no formal response to Complainant's Motion to Compel, on May 17, 1991.

   This office issued an Order to Show Cause on May 20, 1991 in which Complainant was directed to respond as to why this

matter should not be dismissed for lack of a timely complaint, and in which discovery was stayed until further notice, pending consideration of Complainant's response to the Order and of Respondents, Joint Opposition to Complainant's Motion for Reconsideration, filed May 2, 1991.

   On March 9, 1992, the undersigned issued an order granting Complainant's Motion to Amend, and vacating that portion of the Order of May 20, 1991 which stayed discovery. Ten days thereafter, on March 19, 1992, Complainant, via letter, requested an expedited ruling on her Motion to Compel filed May 16, 1991. Respondents filed with this office, on March 25, 1992, a position letter in which they informed that they intend to reply to Complainant's Motion to Compel as provided by 29 C.F.R. § 18.6, should such a response become necessary.

   No response having been filed by Respondents before the expiration of the ten day response time (in fact a total of twenty-five days have accrued, i.e. three days in 1991 dating from Complainant's filing on May 15, 1991, of her Notion to Compel, until the issuance of the Order of May 20, 1991 which stayed discovery, plus ten days between the Order of March 9, 1992, which vacated the discovery stay, and Complainant's March 19, 1992 request for expedited decision on her Motion to Compel, plus an additional twelve days between March 19, 1992 and today March 31, 1992.

   In light of the Order of march 9, 1992, in which the undersigned vacated that portion of the Order of may 20, 1991 staying discovery, and due to the insufficiency with which Respondents have answered or objected to Complainant's interrogatories, Complainant's Motion is hereby granted. Accordingly,

   IT IS ORDERED that Respondents submit to Complainant their replies or objections, with specificity, to Complainant's First Set of Interrogatories and Request for Documents, on or before the close of business April 15, 1992.

   Complainant's Motion for the award of all fees and costs associated with the filing of her Motion to Compel are denied.

At Washington, D.C. Entered: 3/31/92

       by:
          JAMES GUILL
          Associate Chief Judge