Office of Administrative Law Judges 36 E. 7th Street, Suite 2525 Cincinnati, OH 45202
(513) 684-3252 (513) 684-6108 (FAX)
Issue Date: 14 February 2003 CASE No. 2003-STA-6
MARK E. HOWICK,
Complainant,
v.
CAMPBELL - EWALD,
Respondent.
ORDER
On February 10, 2003, Complainant, Mark. E. Howick, filed a motion for a protective order for simultaneous exchange of discovery responses, to which Respondent filed a reply on February 14, 2003. The motion provides no information warranting a protective order. It is, in fact, a motion for an extension of time to comply with the prehearing order. Complainant makes no representation, and none is confirmed, that Complainant contacted the Respondent for such an extension, and there is no evidence presented any evidence that Respondent has engaged in conduct that would warrant such an order. Neither does the Respondent in its reply state any reason why it would be harmed in the grant of an extension of time to comply with its interrogatories. My prior order did not provide for simultaneous exchange of responses to interrogatories, nor is there any outstanding opposition to the concept of simultaneous exchange on such responses, as a general matter. At the prehearing conference, it was merely discussed that Respondent should have the responses to the interrogatories to the Respondent in sufficient time to prepare for the Complainant's deposition.
In addition, there is no representation that counsel even discussed this particular alteration to the schedule, prior to the filing of the motion. (For the benefit of Complainant's counsel, who's recent appearance is duly noted, I informed the parties in the prehearing conference before his appearance, that I expected in such motions for extensions and like procedural matters, that the requesting counsel contact the opposing counsel, and represent in the filing of the motion whether opposing counsel opposed it or not. This was not done in this case.)
It having been established that I find no basis for a protective order, and that the motion is construed as a motion for extension of time to file answers to interrogatories only; and further that there is no basis for any opposition to an extension to the filing of answers to interrogatories to a date later than February 24, 2003, but before February 28, 2003, therefore,
[Page 2]
IT IS ORDERED that an extension for time for Complainant to file his answers to interrogatories is extended to February 26, 2003, in order that Respondent have time to utilize the interrogatories for the March 1, 2003 deposition, and that Respondent serve its responses on the date scheduled, February 28, 2003 - also to accommodate the taking of the deposition.
