Ashland Petroleum

Plain-English summary

This is an interlocutory ruling on a discovery fight, not a decision on any citation. The employer wanted to depose employees of General Electric Company and to force GE to hand over documents, and the administrative law judge denied both requests. The Commission granted the employer's interlocutory appeal and reversed the deposition denial, explaining that the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure let a party identify deponents by a general description of the class or group they belong to, which the employer's motion had done. It affirmed the denial of the motion to compel GE to produce documents for the judge's stated reasons, while noting that the Secretary of Labor may hold some of those documents and that a motion aimed at the Secretary should be viewed favorably. The case was remanded so the employer could proceed with discovery consistent with the decision.

Decision snapshot

• Cited standard(s): None; the decision applies the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (via section 12(g) of the Act and Commission Rule 2, 29 C.F.R. § 2200.2) to a discovery dispute.
• Outcome: The judge's order was affirmed in part and reversed in part; the deposition denial was reversed, the document-production denial affirmed, and the case remanded for discovery.
• Key point: A party may notice depositions by identifying the deponents through a general description of their class or group under Federal Rule 30(b)(1).

Full text (OSHRC public release)

Docket No. 77-4100

ASHLAND PETROLEUM

OSHRC Docket No. 77-4100

Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission

June 9, 1978

�
[*1]
�

Before CLEARY, Chairman; BARNAKO and COTTINE, Commissioners.
�

COUNSEL:

Baruch A. Fellner, Office of the Solicitor, USDOL

Francis V. LaRuffa, Regional Solicitor, U.S. Department of Labor

James N. Schmit, for the employer

John R. MacKenzie, for the employer

OPINION:

DECISION AND ORDER ON INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL

BY THE COMMISSION:

We hereby grant respondent's petition for interlocutory appeal.
�
The order of Administrative Law Judge Abraham Gold is reversed insofar as it denies respondent the right to depose employees of General Electric Company for failure to name the individuals respondent wishes to depose.

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are made applicable to our proceedings by Section 12(g) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, n1 and by Commission Rule 2, 29 CFR �
�
2200.2.
�
Rule 30(b)(1) of the Federal Rules provides that a party may identify persons to be deposed by "a general description sufficient to identify him or the particular class or group to which he belongs." Respondent's motion to take depositions met this criteria for identification.
�
Therefore, the motion should have been granted as to the depositions.
�
We reverse Judge Gold's order denying the motion and remand.
�
[*2]
�

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • -Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

n1 29 USC 651 et seq.

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • -End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

As to that portion of the Judge's order denying respondent's motion to compel General Electric to produce documents, we affirm for the reasons given by Judge Gold.
�
We also note, as did Judge Gold, that the Secretary may well have certain of these documents in his possession, and a motion to compel the Secretary to produce them should be looked upon favorably.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that respondent's motion for interlocutory appeal is granted, and Judge Gold's order is affirmed in part and reversed in part, and the case is remanded for discovery by respondent consistent with this decision.