E.I. Dupont De Nemours & Company (Commission decision, May 23, 1986)

Plain-English summary

DuPont complained that an attorney and law firm had violated a protective order in the case. A Commission judge found that the protected materials had been improperly disclosed. Because time had passed and the materials had already been publicly disseminated, the Commission concluded that efforts to recover or destroy them were unlikely to be effective. It closed the DuPont docket and opened a separate disciplinary proceeding to determine whether sanctions should be imposed on the attorney and firm. The official file was incorporated into the new disciplinary docket.

Decision snapshot

• Cited standard(s): None.
• Outcome: Protective-order case closed; disciplinary issues transferred to docket 86-0651-D.
• Key point: The Commission separated attorney discipline from the underlying case after concluding that recovery of the disclosed materials was no longer practical.

Full text (OSHRC public release)

Docket No. 80-4785

SECRETARY OF LABOR,

Complainant,

v.

E.I. DUPONT DE NEMOURS & COMPANY,

Respondent.

CHEMICAL WORKERS ASSOCIATION,

Authorized Employee Representative.

ROBERT AARON GREENBERG, ESQ.,

Additional Party,

and

THE LAW FIRM OF TOMAR, PARKS, SELIGER,

SIMONOFF & ADOURIAN,

Additional Party.

OSHRC Docket No. 80-4785

ORDER

Before: BUCKLEY, Chairman; RADER and WALL, Commissioners.

BY THE COMMISSION:

E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Company had complained to the Commission that a protective order issued by a Commission administrative law judge in this case had been violated. The Commission then referred the matter to a judge for findings. Administrative Law Judge William E. Brennan found that the protective order had indeed been violated by the law firm of Tomar, Parks, Seliger, Simonoff & Adourian through Robert Aaron Greenberg, Esq., and forwarded his report to the Commission. The Commission ordered the parties to file briefs on various questions, including what remedy is appropriate to secure the return or destruction of the materials disclosed in violation of the protective order and whether disciplinary action was appropriate with respect to any attorney or law firm found to have violated the protective order.

We have fully considered the briefs of the parties in light of the record compiled to date in this case. Although we have considered whether steps should be taken by the Commission to secure the return or destruction of the materials that Judge Brennan found were disclosed in violation of the protective order, we have concluded that with the passage of time and the public dissemination of the materials, the efficacy of such steps is too doubtful to warrant pursuing them further in this case. We conclude that the appropriate course is to institute a separate proceeding against the attorney and law firm found by Judge Brennan to have violated the protective order to determine whether and to what extent disciplinary action should be imposed.

Accordingly, this case, Docket No. 80-4785, is closed. The official file jacket is incorporated by reference into Docket No. 86-651-D.

FOR THE COMMISSION

Ray H. Darling, Jr.

Executive Secretary

Dated: May 23, 1986

The Administrative Law Judge decision in this matter is unavailable in this format. To obtain a copy of this document, please request one from our Public Information Office by e-mail ( [email protected] ), telephone (202-606-5398), fax (202-606-5050), or TTY (202-606-5386).