DOL Home > OALJ > Whistleblower > Carmicheal v. Consolidated Freightways Corporation of Delaware, 2000-STA-53 (ALJ Mar. 2, 2001) |
Carmicheal v. Consolidated Freightways Corporation of Delaware, 2000-STA-53 (ALJ Mar. 2, 2001)
U.S. Department of Labor | Office of Administrative Law Judges 525 Vine Street, Suite 900 Cincinnati, OH 45202 (513) 684-3252 | ![]() |
arch 2, 2001
Case No.: 2000-STA-53
In the Matter of:
OTIS CARMICHEAL
Complainant
v.
CONSOLIDATED FREIGHTWAYS CORPORATION OF DELAWARE
Respondent
This case is presently scheduled to be called for hearing on March 14, 2001 in Indianapolis, Indiana. The Notice of Hearing established a discovery conclusion date of February 23, 2001.
On March 1, 2001, by facsimile transmission, Phillip L. Harmon who is counsel for the Complainant, filed an objection to the non-stipulated documents proffered by the Respondent. In his objection, Mr. Harmon notes that on January 18, 2001, the Complainant served his first request for production of documents upon the Respondent. On February 23, 2001, it is represented that the Complainant received documents in response to that request. That date was subsequent to the time that the deposition of the Complainant had been taken on two separate occasions. On March 1, 2001, it is represented that Complainant's counsel received 148 pages of non-stipulated documents, none of which had ever been produced in response to the discovery request prior to the date of submission. Mr. Harmon alleges that all of the 148 pages of non-stipulated documents were within the control of the Respondent at all times and that those documents were withheld in order for Respondent to gain an unfair advantage. Complainant then requests that these documents be excluded from evidence in this case and that monetary sanctions be imposed. In addition, it is requested that this case be postponed from its scheduled hearing date.
Following consideration of the matter, IT IS ORDERED that the request for postponement is hereby denied. Counsel were advised in my Order of January 10, 2001, that no further request for postponement would be granted.
In view of Complainant's objections, IT IS ORDERED that the Respondent will advise the undersigned by 12:00 noon on March 5, 2001 as to the following:
In addition, Respondent's counsel is to advise as to any reasons why the 148 pages of non-stipulated documents were not submitted in violation of the Pre-hearing Order and as to why those documents should not be excluded from this record and monetary sanctions imposed.
Rudolf L. Jansen
Administrative Law Judge