CASE No.: 91-ERA-39

IN THE MATTER OF

YVONNE HENDERSON,
   Complainant,

    v.

APPLIED RADIOLOGICAL CONTROL (ARC),
    Respondent

   In this whistle-blower proceeding under the Employee Protection Provisions of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, 42 U.S.C. 5851, Respondent moves for a protective order against specified interrogation and/or requests for production of documents served on behalf of Complaintant. It is noted that the motion is made in conformity with my order issued December 3, 1991 herein, but Complainant's opposition thereto is of questionable timeliness since it appears that it was not filed in this Office within ten days after the motion papers were served. Rather than inviting further delay by reason of a disposition on default, however, the objections will not be considered without reference to Complainant's belated opposition.

   Time will not permit in depth analysis of each item in controversy on the eve of trial. The tent applied to each WAS whether it was duplicative or irrelevant or not sought in good faith. The motion is granted to the extent indicated below and is otherwise denied.

   It is hereby directed that the following items are stricken and need not be answered by Respondents

   Interrogatory Numbers 11, 14, 16(b), 17, 18, 22, 35, 39, 40, 41, 50, 51, 58, 67, 72, 82, and 83.

   It is further directed that in interrogatory No. 68 the words "and/or any other employer. are stricken; and that in interrogatory No. 7 the words "in connection with the routine performance of her assigned tasks" and sub-item. b, c and d thereof are stricken. Interrogatory No. 33 and No. 78 are withdrawn. Responses are to be made forthwith.

      ROBERT J. FELDMAN
      Administrative Law Judge

RJF/mb

Dated: January 3, 1992