U.S. Department of Labor Administrative Review Board
200 Constitution Ave, NW
Washington, DC 20210
ARB CASE NO. 98-075
(ALJ CASE NO. 96-CAA-8)
DATE: September 1, 1998
In the Matter of:
DAVID MARSHALL HIGH,
COMPLAINANT,
v.
LOCKHEED MARTIN ENERGY SYSTEMS, INC.;
LOCKHEED MARTIN CORPORATION;
OAK RIDGE OPERATIONS OFFICE; and
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY,
RESPONDENTS.
BEFORE: THE ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW BOARD
ORDER
On June 18, 1998, the Board issued an order granting Complainant David
Marshall High's request for an extension of time in which to file his initial brief and ordering
Complainant to file his brief on or before July 15, 1998. On July 22, 1998, in a letter addressed to
the Executive Director of the Administrative Review Board, Complainant filed the following
motions: a Motion in Limine for an order declaring that certain recent Supreme Court
decisions are applicable to this case as well to as to other whistleblower cases; a Motion to
Supplement the Record; and a motion for "stay," i.e., an extension of the
briefing schedule. Respondents Lockheed Martin and the United States Department of Energy have
filed oppositions to Complainant's motion in limine and motion to supplement the record, but do not
object to a short extension of time for Complainant to file his brief.
[Page 2]
The Motion in limine is denied. As we recently stated in another case
in which counsel for Complainant filed similar motions, Shelton v. Oak Ridge Nat'l Lab.,
ARB Case No. 98-100, ALJ Case No. 95-CAA-19, Order, Aug. 26, 1998, Complainant can cite and
discuss any applicable authority in his brief on the merits. It would not be appropriate for the Board
to issue the advisory opinion that Complainant requests divorced from the facts of a specific case.
Complainant's motion to supplement the record with a newspaper article about
retaliation and reprisal against Department of Energy employees also is denied. The article, which
Complainant attached to his motion, is hearsay, and there is nothing in the article that appears
directly relevant to the facts in this case.
Complainant's motion for an extension of time to file his initial brief is
granted. We emphasize however, that the briefing schedule in this case was first set in February
1998, and we would look with great disfavor on any attempt by Complainant to further delay
briefing. Therefore, any subsequent requests for extensions by Complainant will be denied.
Complainant shall file his brief on or before September 15, 1998. Respondents may file
reply briefs on or before October 15, 1998. Complainant may file a rebuttal brief on or
before October 30, 1998. All the other provisions of the Order Granting Extension of
Time and Amending Briefing Schedule of June 18, 1998 shall continue to apply.
