Ezel / Agency Decisions / 91-1

In re: Contests of Respirable Dust Sample Alteration Citations (ALJ decision, June 30, 1992)

In re: Contests of Respirable Dust Sample Alteration Citations (FMSHRC 91-1): Remand discovery directions issued

Decision type
ALJ decision
Docket
91-1
Decided
June 30, 1992
Presiding judge
James A. Broderick
Outcome
Procedural
Precedential status
Interlocutory order, not final
Checked against source
2026-08-15
Official source
Read the official release (fmshrc.gov)
PDF
View Official PDF

Apply this to your situation

This order from 1992 bound only the parties to this case; it isn't precedent. Ask about your situation and see what the current MSHA standards and Commission precedent say, with citations.

Currency note: this decision dates from 1992
The MSHA standards may have been amended, penalty amounts have been adjusted, and later Commission or court decisions may have changed the analysis since then. Treat this page as historical context, not current compliance advice. Verify the current standard before relying on any specific rule, threshold, or penalty mentioned here.
Interlocutory ALJ order, not Commission precedent
This order resolved a procedural issue while the underlying proceeding remained pending. It did not dispose of the case or become a final decision under the 40-day rule in 30 U.S.C. § 823(d)(1). The full text below is from the official FMSHRC release.
About this page: The plain-English summary and decision snapshot below were written by Ezel based on the official FMSHRC release. The full text is the agency's own release.
Read the official release (fmshrc.gov)

Plain-English summary

This order addressed a Commission remand in the consolidated respirable dust sample alteration proceedings. Judge James A. Broderick was directed to rule on the Secretary's work-product privilege claim for six documents and on whether Criminal Rule 6(e) barred disclosure of two folders. He ordered the Secretary to resubmit the six documents for in camera inspection and respond about the status of any grand-jury investigation. He also required the parties to file memoranda addressing the privilege claim and Rule 6(e) by July 15, 1992.

Decision snapshot

  • Cited standard(s): None stated in the decision.
  • Outcome: The judge issued discovery and briefing directions to carry out the Commission's remand.
  • Key point: The remand required in camera review and focused briefing on work-product privilege and grand-jury secrecy.

Full text (FMSHRC public release)

CCASE:
CONTESTS OF RESPIRABLE
DUST SAMPLE ALTERATION
CITATIONS
DDATE:
19920630
TTEXT:

Page 2

~1112

Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission Office of Administrative Law Judges
2 SKYLINE, 10TH FLOOR
5203 LEESBURG PIKE
FALLS CHURCH, VIRGINIA 22041

IN RE: CONTESTS OF RESPIRABLE
Master Docket No. 91-1
DUST SAMPLE ALTERATION
CITATIONS

ORDER

The Commission remanded this matter to me by its decision issued June 29, 1992, for a ruling on the Secretary's claim of attorney work product privilege to support her refusal to disclose documents 3, 365, 366, 367, 401 and 424. The Commission also directed me to rule on whether Rule 6(e) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure bars disclosure of folders 11 and 12 of document 406. 14 FMSHRC ______ (1992).

To assist me in carrying out the terms of the remand, I direct the Secretary to resubmit documents 3, 365, 366, 367, 401 and 424 to me on or before July 10, 1992, for inspection in camera. Contestants may on or before the same date file a motion for in camera inspection of any other document concerning which the Secretary's claim of privilege was upheld. I also direct the Secretary to respond to my letter of June 18, 1992, concerning the present status of any grand jury investigation.

Finally, I direct that the parties file on or before July 15, 1992, memoranda in support of their respective positions on the Secretary's work product privilege claim, and on the applicability of Rule 6(e) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.
James A. Broderick
Administrative Law Judge

What applies to your situation today?

This order bound one employer. Ezel checks the current MSHA standards and Commission precedent against your facts, with citations.

Try Ezel Pro free for 7 days. Cancel anytime before the trial ends and you pay nothing.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace