Office of Administrative Law Judges 36 E. 7th Street, Suite 2525 Cincinnati, OH 45202
(513) 684-3252 (513) 684-6108 (FAX)
Issue date: 06Mar2002 Case No. 2001-ERA-33
In the Matter of
CRAIG H. FRITTS
Complainant
v.
INDIANA MICHIGAN POWER COMPANY
Respondent
BEFORE: RUDOLF L. JANSEN
Administrative Law Judge
ORDER DENYING COMPLAINANT'S MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
This case was originally scheduled to be called for hearing on December 11, 2001 in South Bend, Indiana. However, an Order of Postponement was entered on November 29, 2001 rescheduling the case for March 12, 2002 in South Bend. As a result of a rescheduling conference call, it was agreed that certain scheduling dates were to be extended. February 26, 2002 was determined to be the date for the exchange of exhibits and issue statements as was required in the original Prehearing Order. That original Order also determined that discovery "will be concluded by October 31, 2001." That date was not extended. The record shows that both parties were withholding documents until a final Protective Order was in place.
John T. Burhans, Complainant's counsel, has now filed on March 4, 2002, a Motion to Compel the Production of Documents. The Motion indicates that the Respondent had objected to the production of documents and information in a variety of interrogatories which had been issued by the Complainant. The Motion alleges that the information sought to be discovered now is "relevant, material and probative of the issues" which are present in this case. The motion gives no indication as to how the material now sought to be discovered is relevant and probative of any matter at issue.
On March 5, 2002, Respondent filed a statement in opposition to the Complainant's Motion to Compel. The Respondent's statement indicates that the Motion should be denied in its entirety since it is untimely and it sets forth no grounds in support. Respondent argues that discovery in this case was closed approximately three months ago in October of 2001 and that it is now too late to entertain this Motion. Respondent also represents that the applicable rules require a statement of the grounds in support of the Motion and that Complainant has neglected to do so in this matter. It is also argued that the Complainant failed to make any effort to consult with the Respondent in order to resolve any discovery disputes without Court intervention.
[Page 2]
Respondent is correct in that this motion is clearly untimely. The original notice of hearing established a discovery conclusion date of October 31, 2001. That date was never subsequently extended. Respondent's counsel did represent in a letter dated November 16, 2001 that "[b]oth parties are currently withholding documents until a protective order is in place." That representation was reiterated in a letter from Respondent's counsel dated November 21, 2001 in which it was represented by one of Respondent's counsel that "Respondent has agreed to provide a response to Complainant's Fourth Request for Documents that was served on October 29, 2001." A response in that same letter was solicited from Complainant's counsel and to my knowledge, no objection was ever raised. The Pre-Hearing Order does indicate a three day period for the filing of preliminary motions and objections to any proposed exhibits or testimony, but that window for objecting relates to the pre-hearing trial submission and not to the discovery process. Thus, this motion is clearly untimely.
In addition, the Rules of Practice and Procedure for Administrative Hearings Before the Office of Administrative Law Judges provides generally that motions ". . . shall state with particularity the grounds therefor . . . ." 29 C.F.R. § 18.6(a). The Motion to Compel Production filed by Complainant here offers no grounds other than a general representation that the matters are relevant. Thus, the motion is also deficient in that regard.
In view of the above, IT IS ORDERED that the Complainant's Motion to Compel Production of Documents is hereby denied as being untimely and vague. It is expected that counsel for the Respondent will comply with the representations made in his earlier correspondence concerning production of documents now that a Protective Order has been entered.
