_______________________________
                               :
SECRETARY OF LABOR,            :
                               :
          Complainant,         :
                               :
          v.                   :   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 ***.

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.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

OSHRC Home <http://www.oshrc.gov/index.html>