Hoch v. Clark County Health District, 1998-CAA-12 (ALJ Apr. 3, 2000)

U.S. Department of Labor

Office of Administrative Law Judges 800 K Street, NW, Suite 400-N Washington, DC 20001-8002 (202) 565-5330 (202) 565-5325 (FAX)

Date Issued: April 3, 2000
Case No. 1998-CAA-0012

In the Matter of

DAVID HOCH
    Complainant

   v.

CLARK COUNTY HEALTH
DISTRICT
    Respondent

   By letter dated March 28, 2000, Complainant's counsel seeks reconsideration of the Supplemental Order Awarding Attorneys' Fees issued in this matter on March 15, 2000. As grounds supporting his motion, Complainant notes that the Supplemental Order issued before his Reply to Clark County's Opposition to Petition for Attorney's Fees and Costs was submitted on March 16, 2000. In Complainant's view, the failure to afford him an opportunity to reply to Clark County's opposition justifies reconsideration.

   A Decision and Order on the merits issued in this matter on January 18, 2000. The Order required, inter alia, that Complainant's counsel submit their fee request within thirty days, and, thereafter, Clark County was afforded fifteen days to respond. The Order did not authorize a reply to Clark County's submission. We must, therefore, consult the applicable procedural rules for the right of reply which Complainant here seeks to invoke.

   The specific procedural rules of "special application" governing employee whistleblower proceedings are set forth at 29 C.F.R. Part 24.6. Those rules are silent on this issue. The rules of general practice and procedure which apply in the absence of "rules of special application" were promulgated and published at 29 C.F.R. Part 18. Those rules do address this situation. Rule 18.6(b) expressly provides that "unless the administrative law judge provides otherwise, no reply to an answer, response to a reply, or any further responsive document shall be filed." As noted above, leave to reply was not authorized. Accordingly, Hoch's reply was filed in violation of Rule 18.6(b).

   The Supplemental Order properly issued upon Complainant's petition and Clark County's answer consistent with the Order issued on January 18, 2000, and the applicable rules of practice. The fact that Complainant's unauthorized March 16, 2000, reply was not considered provides no basis for reconsideration. Therefore, Complainant's petition for reconsideration is hereby DENIED.

       STUART A. LEVIN
       Administrative Law Judge