DATE:  June 25, 1993
CASE NO. 93-CAA-4 


IN THE MATTER OF

DR. WILLIAM K. REID,

          COMPLAINANT,

     v.

METHODIST MEDICAL CENTER OF OAK RIDGE,
TENNESSEE MEDICAL MANAGEMENT, INC.,
RALPH LILLARD,
MARSHALL WHISNANT, DR. RICHARD BRANTLEY,
MARTIN MARIETTA ENERGY SYSTEMS, INC.,
MARTIN MARIETTA CORP.,
DR. DANIEL CONRAD,

          RESPONDENTS.


BEFORE:  THE SECRETARY OF LABOR


                                  ORDER 

     On April 14, 1993, the Office of Administrative Appeals
issued a briefing order in this case, stating "parties may file
briefs, not to exceed 30 double-spaced typed pages, in support of
or in opposition to the ALJ's Recommended Order within 30 days of
receipt of this order."  On May 14 and May 17, 1993, various
Respondents filed briefs in support of the ALJ's decision.[1]  On
May 21, 1993, Complainant ("Reid") filed his brief.  Thereafter
all Respondents filed motions to strike Reid's brief on the
grounds it was filed with the Secretary out of time, it did not
comply with either the letter or the spirit of the 30-page length
limit set in the Briefing Order, and it contained appendices
which were either argument or not in the record of the case. 
Reid filed a response to these motions in which he asserted that
the brief was timely filed, and that "[t]here are no rules
applicable here concerning typeface style or font size for briefs
or other pleadings filed before the Agency."  
     While the various motions to strike and Reid's response were
pending before the Department of Labor, on June 11, 1993, Reid
filed his reply brief.  Reid also requested leave to file a
rebuttal to any briefs filed in reply to his opening brief.  On
June 14, 1993 the Medical Center filed five documents:  a motion
to file a reply brief in excess of twenty pages; a twenty-five
page reply brief; an opposition to Reid's motion to file a
rebuttal brief, or in the alternative, a request that such leave
be granted to all parties; a motion to strike footnote 30 from
Reid's opening brief; and a motion to strike Reid's reply brief
on the grounds that it evaded the page limitations and was
untimely filed.
     1. I deny Respondents' motions to strike Reid's opening
brief on the grounds that Reid's brief was untimely filed.  The
Office of Administrative Appeals served the briefing schedule in
this case by certified mail, return receipt requested.  The green
cards received from Reid's attorneys show that attorney Kittrell
received the briefing order on April 16, 1993, and attorney
Slavin received the briefing order on April 22, 1993.  Upon
inquiry by one of Reid's attorney, an employee of the Office of
Administrative Appeals stated that the 30 day time limitation
would run from the later of the two dates upon which Reid's
attorneys received the briefing order.  Therefore Reid's brief
was due to be filed on or before May 22, 1993.  Reid's attorney
certified that the brief was hand delivered to the Office of
Administrative Appeals on May 21, 1993.  Nothing in the docket of
the case supports a conclusion that the certification is not
accurate.  Therefore, I conclude that Reid timely filed his
opening brief.
     2.  I also reluctantly deny Respondents' motions to strike
Reid's opening brief on the grounds that he has attempted to
evade the 30 page briefing limitation by filing a brief in
unconventionally small type.  Although Reid's attorneys regularly
practice before the Office of Administrative Appeals, and thus
have great familiarity with the practices and procedures of that
office, Reid's attorneys chose to prepare their opening brief in
typeface which is about one half the size of typeface normally
used on briefs.  In fact, the body of Reid's brief is printed in
a different--and much smaller--typeface than the cover page, the
table of contents, and the table of authorities.  Reid gives no
explanation for the choice of typeface.  He simply states that no
rule dictates typeface size, and that other sizes of typeface
have been used in other cases.  Moreover, the equivalent of 15
pages of Reid's opening brief are taken up with single-spaced
footnotes, including several that are one half page or more in
length.  Because the Office of Administrative Appeals has not
found it necessary heretofore to prescribe typeface size,
margins, and page size, I deny Respondents' requests to strike
Reid's brief in its entirety.  Parties to this case should take
note, however, that all future pleadings must conform to the page
limitations and shall be prepared in Courier 12 point, 10
character-per-inch type or larger, with minimum one inch left and
right margins and minimum 1.25 inch top and bottom margins,
printed on 8 1/2 by 11 inch paper.  Attorneys should be wary of
attempting further evasion of this and similar future orders "by
moving gobs of text into single-spaced footnotes . . . ." 
Westinghouse Elec. Corp. v. N.L.R.B., 809 F.2d 419, 425 n.
* (7th Cir. 1987).    
     3.  Reid requested leave to file an appendix to his opening
brief.  The appendix contains additional argument on the
jurisdictional issues presented in the case and an exchange of
correspondence with the Department of Energy that is not in the
record.  Because appendices A through D contain argument that can
only properly be contained in the body of the brief, I order them
stricken.  I order Appendices E and F stricken because they are
outside the record.
     4.  I deny Reid's request to file a rebuttal to reply briefs
which have been filed.  All parties have been given ample
opportunities to address the two jurisdictional issues presented
in this case at this time.  As noted above, Reid has taken more
than full advantage of those page limitations.  No further
briefing is necessary or warranted.
     5.  In light of my ruling above, I also deny the Medical
Center's contingent motion for leave to file a rebuttal brief.
     6.  The Medical Center has moved to strike Reid's reply
brief on the grounds that it was filed more than 20 days after
receipt of the Medical Center's brief and because Reid has sought
to evade the page limitations specified in the briefing order by
preparing his brief in inordinately small type.  Reid received
the Medical Center's brief on May 17, 1993, and filed his reply
by telefax and mail on June 10, 1993.  Sunday, June 6, 1993 was
the twentieth day after Reid received the Medical Center's brief. 
Because Reid's brief is at most a few days out of time I deny the
motion to strike.  For the reasons discussed in paragraph 2
above, I deny the Medical Center's motion with regard to
typeface.
     7.  I reserve until my decision on the merits the Medical
Center's motion to strike footnote 30 from Reid's opening brief. 
The parties can be assured that the footnote will get the
attention that it deserves.
     8.  I grant the Medical Center's motion to file a reply
brief in excess of 20 pages.  The Medical Center attached a reply
brief which is just over 25 pages in length.  In light of the
previously described efforts on the part of Reid to file briefs
which evade the page limitations set in the briefing order, it is
only fair that the Medical Center be allowed some latitude in the
length of its response. 
     SO ORDERED.

                              For the Secretary of Labor

                               GRESHAM C. SMITH
                              Acting Director, Office of         
                              Administrative Appeals [2]


Washington, D.C.

[ENDNOTES]

[1]  Respondents Martin Marietta Energy Systems, Inc., Martin
Marietta Corp., and Dr. Daniel Conrad (collectively referred to
as "Martin Marietta") filed their brief on May 14, 1993. 
Respondent Tennessee Medical Management, Inc. ("Tennessee
Medical") filed its brief on May 14, 1993.  Respondents Methodist
Medical Center of Oak Ridge, Ralph Lillard, Marshall Whisnant,
and Dr. Richard Brantley (collectively referred to as "the
Medical Center") filed their brief on May 17, 1993.

[2]  This order is pursuant to Secretary's Order 3-90,
55 Fed. Reg. 13,250 (April 9, 1990) (copy appended).