Quinn & Kwolek, Inc.

Plain-English summary

Quinn & Kwolek did not answer the Secretary's interrogatories, document requests, or requests for admission by the required deadline. It then failed to comply with Judge G. Marvin Bober's order compelling discovery and offered no explanation. Finding a pattern of disregard for the proceeding, the judge granted the Secretary's sanctions motion and affirmed the June 17, 1999 citation and penalty in full; the release does not identify the cited standards or penalty amount.

Decision snapshot

• Cited standard(s): None identified in the official release.
• Outcome: Citation and notification of penalty affirmed in full as a discovery sanction.
• Key point: Ignoring discovery requests and a judge's compel order can result in default and affirmance of the citation without a merits hearing.

Full text (OSHRC public release)

                           United States of America
          OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION
                      1120 20th Street, N.W., Ninth Floor
                         Washington, DC 20036-3419

SECRETARY OF LABOR,
Complainant,
OSHRC DOCKET NO. 99-1285
QUINN & KWOLEK, INC.,
Respondent.

        DECISION AND ORDER ON MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT

   On January 12, 2000, the Complainant filed her Motion for Sanctions Pursuant to Rule 52(e).

In her motion, the Complainant asserts that Respondent failed to answer her (1) First Set of
Interrogatories, (2) First Request for Production for Documents, and (3) First Request for
Admissions, which required a response on or before December 21, 1999. The Complainant also
asserts that on December 21, 1999, she filed her Motion to Compel Response to Discovery Request,
that on January 5, 2000, the undersigned issued an order granting the motion, and that pursuant to
that order, the admissions in the Complainant’s request were deemed admitted and the responses to
the other discovery requests were to be filed no later than 3:00 p.m.on January 10, 2000. Finally, the
Complainant asserts that Respondent has not responded to the order of January 5, 2000, and she now
seeks sanctions against the Respondent.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
Rule 41(a) of the Commission’s Rules of Procedure, 29 C.F.R. 2200.41(a), provides, in
pertinent part, as follows:
Sanctions: When any party has failed to plead or otherwise proceed as provided by
these rules or as required by the *** Judge, he may be declared to be in default ***
on the motion of a party. Thereafter, the *** Judge, in [his] discretion, may enter a
decision against the defaulting party ***.
 2

     Rule 52(e) of the Commission’s Rules of Procedure, 29 C.F.R. 2200.52(e), provides, in

pertinent part, as follows:
If a Judge enters an order compelling discovery and there is a failure to comply with
that order, the Judge may make such orders with regard to the failure as are just.
In my opinion, Respondent has engaged in a pattern of total disregard for this Court, the
administrative process and the pending proceeding. Counsel for the Complainant has been more than
reasonable in her requests. The Respondent has not responded to the requests or to my order and has
offered no reason for not complying in this matter. Philadelphia Constr. Equip., Inc., 16 BNA OSHC
1128 (No. 92-899, 1993).
Good cause has been shown for granting the motion.
IT IS ORDERED that the Complainant’s Motion for Sanctions Pursuant to Rule 52(e) is
GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Citation and Notification of Penalty
issued June 17, 1999, is AFFIRMED in its entirety.

                                                   G. Marvin Bober
                                                   Administrative Law Judge

Dated:
Washington, D.C.