Carmicheal v. Consolidated Freightways Corp. of Delaware, 2000-STA-53 (ALJ Mar. 6, 2001)

U.S. Department of Labor

Office of Administrative Law Judges 525 Vine Street, Suite 900 Cincinnati, OH 45202 (513) 684-3252 (513) 684-6108 (FAX)

Case No.: 2000-STA-53

In the Matter of:

OTIS CARMICHEAL
    Complainant

    v.

CONSOLIDATED FREIGHTWAYS CORPORATION OF DELAWARE
    Respondent

   On March 2, 2001, I issued a Discovery Order which compelled counsel for the Respondent to advise me as to certain categories of information concerning discovery requests previously made by Complainant's counsel. By facsimile transmission on March 5, 2001, Joseph C. Devine, counsel for Respondent timely responded to each of the items identified in the Discovery Order. His responses were complete and supported by attached documentation.

   Upon receipt of Mr. Devine's response, I issued an Order on March 5, 2001 which required Phillip L. Harmon, counsel for Complainant to file a responsive statement to that made by Mr. Devine. By facsimile transmission on March 5, 2001, Mr. Harmon did submit by facsimile transmission a timely response. However, his statement is not responsive to the factual representations made by Mr. Devine and I find it to be inadequate and non-supportive of a request for sanctions.

   In view of the above, IT IS ORDERED that the Complainant's request for sanctions in this case is hereby denied.

   There is also pending a Motion by Complainant to Supplement Non-Stipulated Documents. Argument on that Motion will be heard at the time that this case is called for hearing on March 14, 2001 in Indianapolis. I urge counsel to reach agreement as to the stipulation of this material.

   I once again refer counsel to the December 8, 2000 Notice of Hearing and Pre-Hearing Order. That Order sets out in detail the manner in which I want documents marked and paginated in this case. Any submission made by either party up to this point which does not fully comply with that Order should be properly marked and resubmitted at the time this matter is called for hearing. I also note for counsel that in marking exhibits, I expect exhibits to start with numeral 1 and not 101 which would imply that 100 exhibits have preceded it. I also note that the name of

the Department of Labor does not appear in the caption of this case and therefore should not be denoted in marking exhibits. Additionally, in reviewing the caption of this case, neither party is identified as the "defendant." I also bring to the attention of counsel that the exhibits after being properly marked and paginated are either to be placed in a three-ring binder or be bound together in some other acceptable form.

   Mr. Harmon has indicated in his responsive statement that Complainant Exhibits 14 through 19 are too voluminous to have been faxed to this office. I caution him that no exhibits will be received into evidence unless they have been marked, paginated and placed in a binder in an orderly fashion so that they can be located and used by the Court at the time of the trial of this case.

   Finally, in Mr. Harmon's letter of February 28, 2001, he mentions stipulating earnings records of Complainant. Counsel should stipulate all relevant earnings history data and no additional documents should be made a part of the record unless absolutely necessary.

       Rudolf L. Jansen
       Administrative Law Judge