U.S. Department of Labor
Office of Administrative Law Judges
1111 20th Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036
87-ERA-25
In the Matter of:
MARSHALL TREIBER,
Claimant,
v.
TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY, ET AL.
Respondent,
ORDER
Complaint's Motion for Continuance, received December 19,
1988, and responses of TVA and System Energy Resources,
Incorporated, received December 29, 1988 have been considered.
From these documents it appears that Complaint has known since
July 1988 that two of the people he now wants to depose are no
longer employees of TVA, that their respective locations are in
Kingsport, Tennessee and Kent, Washington, and without some
agreement and travel arrangements, all could not be deposed in
Jackson, Mississippi. What is not known, however, and has not
been offered is an explanation of why Complainant failed to
schedule depositions or file interrogatories for discovery of
Messers Hartman and Thompson within the time allowed. While I am
aware, (1) that some time elapsed between the mailing of the
Order of October 26, 1988 and its receipt, (2) of the time
required for notice of depositions, unless otherwise waived, (3)
of possible conflicts of lawyers schedules which can delay the
obtaining of an agreeable date for depositions, (4) of the
possible unavailability of witnesses for depositions, and (5)
that Complainant may not have had sufficient funds to cover the
associated expenses, such has not been proffered by Complainant
as the cause of his failures to complete discovery within the
allotted time.
Considering the reasons why Complainant, was granted leave
to conduct discovery prior to a ruling on respondents' respective
Motions for Summary Judgment, caution mandates that Complainant
[Page 2]
be granted a reasonable time to explain why he failed to do so.
While such reasons could be inferred from his motion, I will not
do so given the procedural progression history of this matter.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Complainant submit, on or before January
20, 1989, the reasons why the remaining desired discovery was not
completed within the time constraints of the leave granted on
October 26, 1988. Upon receipt of such response or the
expiration of the time permitted for Claimant's respose,
whichever occurs first, I will rule on the motion for
continuance.
The time for submitting final positions on Respondents
Motions for Summary Judgment is hereby stayed.
