Case No. 89-WPC-1

In the Matter of

SALMON ABU-HJELI
    Complainant

    v.

POTOMAC ELECTRIC POWER
COMPANY     Employer

    Complainant has moved for an order to protect witnesses who may testify on his behalf. Additionally, Complainant has moved for an order to prohibit Respondent from instructing its employees not to communicate with him or his attorneys. Respondent has filed an objection to Complainant's motions. In support of his motions, Complainant states that several of Respondent's employees are fearful that their cooperation in this proceeding will result in demotion, suspension, termination, or other forms of intimidation and harassment. Complainant attached two anonymous affidavits to corroborate this position. Additionally, Complainant stated it would, at the Court's request, submit the signed and notarized versions of these statements.

    In response, Respondent denies Complainant's allegations that employees have any reason to feel they would be retaliated against for participating in this case. Respondent asserts Complainant has not presented sufficient evidence to support the need for a protective order. Respondent further noted the stipulation made at Complainant's deposition, whereby Respondent agreed to state on the record that it would take no adverse action against any employee who participates in this case on behalf of Complainant.

    Complainant maintains the burden of producing competent

evidence to justify the issuance of a protective order. Such affidavits, if they exist, will not be "requested". If Counsel has relevant information that should be considered by the Administrative Law Judge, it is Counsel's responsibility to produce it. I find the unsigned statements Complainant has submitted to be self-serving, vague and not supported by any factual basis.

    In light of Respondents willingness to stipulate on the record that it will not retaliate against any participant in this case and because there is no evidence to indicate otherwise, I find the relief sought is unwarranted at this time.

    Complainant's motions for a protective order are DENIED.

       ROBERT G. MAHONY
       Administrative Law Judge

Dated:
Washington, D.C.

RGM:JM:crg