Decisions and Orders | Office of Administrative Law Judges

 
	
		
	
	
	

  






UNITED STATES 
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY



BEFORE THE ADMINISTRATOR










IN THE MATTER OF

ROGERS CORPORATION            		DOCKET NO.  TSCA-I-94-1079

	Respondent







ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR DISCOVERY




	On June 12, 1995, Respondent filed a motion for leave to take further discovery, pursuant to
Section 22.19(f) of the EPA Rules of Practice (Rules), 40 C.F.R. § 22.19(f). The Respondent in this
motion seeks to propound requests for admission and requests for production of documents, and asks
permission to take oral depositions.  On June 22, 1995, Complainant responded inopposition to this
motion asserting that this motion is premature since the prehearing exchange has not yet occurred.
	Respondent then, on June 28, 1995, filed a motion for leave to reply to Complainant's opposition. 
There was no opposition to Respondent's motion for leave to reply, so that motion is granted and the reply
will be considered in disposition of the discovery motion.  This reply asserts that Respondent has met the
requirements of Section 22.19(f) of the Rules, and argues that the fact that the prehearing exchange had
not taken place should have no bearing on disposition of the discovery motion.
	The prehearing exchange took place between the parties on July 31, 1995, and extensive
information and documentary data was submitted by both the Complainant and Respondent.
	On analysis, Complainant's position on the discovery motion is better taken.  The rationale
underlying Section 22.19 of the Rules which provides for the prehearing exchange of information between
the parties, is that this exchange consists of discovery for the parties.  Further discovery is only permitted
after a motion has been filed under Section 22.19(f), which motion must meet the specific criteria set out
in this Subsection.  Until the prehearing exchange has occurred, a proper evaluation cannot be made as to
whether a request for other discovery meets the criteria set out in Section 22.19(f) justifying further
discovery beyond the prehearing exchange.  Accordingly, Respondent's motion was premature when filed
and, therefore, is denied.  This denial is without prejudice to Respondent filing a further discovery motion,
if it considers such action necessary, since Respondent now has had the opportunity to review the
Complainant's prehearing exchange.
	So Ordered.
Daniel M. Head

Administrative Law Judge
Dated: November 8, 1996

Washington, D.C.



IN THE MATTER OF ROGERS CORPORATION, Respondent
Docket No. TSCA-I-94-1079
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE




	I certify that the foregoing Order Denying Motion for Discovery, dated November 8, 1996, was
sent in the following manner to the addressees listed below:
Original by Pouch Mail to:
Mary Anne Gavin

					
Regional Hearing Clerk

						
U.S. Environmental Protection

								
Agency, Region I 

							
J.F.K Fed. Building 

							Boston, MA 02203
Copy by Certified Mail, Return
Receipt Requested to:
Counsel for Complainant:
	Audrey Zucker, Esquire

						
Office of Regional Counsel

							
Environmental Protection

								
Agency, Region I

							
JFK Fed.  Bldg.

							Boston, MA 02203-2211
Counsel for Respondent:
	Kenneth A. Reich, Esquire

						
DAY, BERRY & HOWARD

						
260 Franklin Street

							Boston, MA 02110
Aurora M. Jennings


Legal Assistant


Office of Administrative

	
Law Judges


Environmental Protection Agency

Washington, DC 20460
Dated: November 8, 1996

Washington DC
Local Navigation
