Secretary of Labor, MSHA v. John Richards Construction

Plain-English summary

MSHA alleged that John Richards Construction operated machinery without a securely installed guard and proposed a $100 penalty. Judge William B. Moran designated the single-citation case for the Commission's simplified-proceedings track and denied the operator's request to take depositions. He explained that due process would be satisfied by a hearing, cross-examination, witness identification, and exhibit exchange, and that depositions were unnecessary for this small case. The order also directed the parties to choose between proposed April and July 2014 hearing dates. The citation was resolved later in west-2011-129-alj.

Decision snapshot

• Cited standard: 30 C.F.R. § 56.14112(b)
• Outcome: The case was designated for simplified proceedings, depositions were denied, and a hearing was scheduled.
• Key point: Depositions are not required for due process when the simplified-proceedings disclosures and hearing rights provide a meaningful opportunity to present the case.

Full text (FMSHRC public release)

FEDERAL MINE SAFETY
AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION

1331 Pennsylvania
Ave., NW Suite 520N

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20004

(202) 434-9933

January 16, 2014

SECRETARY OF LABOR

MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH

ADMINISTRATION (MSHA),

Petitioner

v.

JOHN RICHARDS CONSTRUCTION

Respondent

CIVIL PENALTY PROCEEDING

Docket No. WEST 2011-129-M

A.C. No. 2402070-000232297

Mine Name: RICHARDS PIT

NOTICE OF
HEARING and RULING ON MOTIONS

Hearing:

Upon consultation with the parties it was agreed that the
hearing in this matter shall commence on Thursday, April 3, 2014. The
hearing location will be held in or as close as possible to Missoula,
Montana. If the parties prefer, this hearing can also be set for July
10, 2014. The parties are directed to advise the Court as to the preferred
date for the hearing. A subsequent notice shall note the date chosen and
provide the courtroom location.

The hearing will be conducted in
accordance with the Mine Act and the Commission’s
Procedural Rules addressing the subject, as set forth at 29 C.F.R. Part 2700,
Subpart G. The issues to be resolved are as identified in the pleadings.

Any party intending to offer
exhibits at the hearing shall submit an exhibit list at the start of the
hearing. Each exhibit shall be marked; each of the Secretary’s Exhibits are to be marked
with a “P” or some other uniform
designation, followed by a number, in sequence, and, in the same fashion, each
of Respondent’s
Exhibits are to be marked with an “R” or with some other uniform
designation, followed by a number, in sequence. A copy of each exhibit is to be
provided to the opposing side.[1] Each
potential witness is also to be identified, along with a brief statement of the
expected testimony from that witness. This exchange is to occur on or before
February 28, 2014. Supplemental exchanges may be made as long as they are made
in good faith and arising from information which was not reasonably available
at the time of the initial exchange.

Ruling on Motions

Having considered the Respondent’s Motion requesting a
hearing on MSHA’s
request to designate this matter for Simplified Proceedings, 29 C.F.R. Part
2700, Subpart J and Respondent’s
request for depositions, the Secretary’s
Response thereto, and “Defendants” Response to the Secretary’s response, the Court
designates this matter for simplified proceedings and DENIES the Respondent’s request for the taking of
depositions.

This case involves a single section
104(a) citation, in which the Secretary alleges a violation of 30 C.F.R. § 56.14112(b), a guarding
standard which provides that “Guards
shall be securely in place while machinery is being operated, except when
testing or making adjustments which cannot be performed without removal of the
guard.” The citation
alleges that a guard was not in place at a self-cleaning tail pulley at the
bearing/take up area. Because of its location, away from the travel way, the
citation was not designated as “significant
and substantial” and
the risk of injury was marked as “unlikely.” This resulted in a
proposed assessment of $100.00 (one hundred dollars).

Respondent seeks to conduct
depositions in this matter and asserts that it is entitled to a hearing, that
MSHA has the burden of proof, and that it is entitled to “due process.” Respondent’s assertions are correct:
it is entitled to due process, it does have a right to a hearing, and the
Secretary, acting on behalf of MSHA, does have the burden of proof . The Secretary
does not contest that the Respondent has a right to a hearing, nor that the
burden of proof is on the Secretary. The Secretary also does not challenge the
Respondent’s claim to
due process and each of these rights will be observed. The claimed “right” to take depositions,
however, is another matter.

This matter fits squarely within
the type of case that is completely appropriate for simplified proceedings. Pursuant
to 29 C.F.R. §
2700.100, generally and, more particularly, applying § 2700.101, “Eligibility
for Simplified Proceedings,”
the single citation involved here includes all of the characteristics
identified in that provision. It is noted that, to fit within such eligibility,
only “one or more” of those characteristics
need be present; there is no requirement that all of the characteristics be
present. Further, addressing the Respondent’s
general claim of entitlement to “due
process,” the Court
informs that due process is a flexible concept. The process which is “due” is not uniform for every case that is
litigated and this is true for all litigation disputes, not simply Mine Act
matters. Affording the Respondent with a hearing, which includes the right to
present witnesses on its behalf, as well as to cross-examine the government’s witnesses, and to present
exhibits, as well as to review the exhibits of the opposing side, all comport
with satisfying due process. Depositions are not an essential part of due
process for matters of this nature. Starr v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue,
226 F.2d 721(7th Cir. 1955), cert. denied, 350 U.S. 993 (1956). The
Administrative Procedure Act contains no provision for pretrial discovery in
the administrative process. N.L.R.B. v. Vapor Blast Mfg. Co., 287 F.2d
402 (7th Cir. 1961), Silverman v. Commodity Futures Trading
Commission, 549 F.2d 28, *33 (7th Cir. 1977). Here, with the
prehearing exchange of expected witnesses, together with a statement about the
subject of their testimony, and the exchange of all exhibits intended to be
introduced, these disclosures insure that fundamental fairness will be present.
In fact, the Secretary has stated that as of January 5, 2012, it had provided
the Respondent with “the
inspection file, [which] includ[ed] copies of the citation, [the] inspector’s field notes, and [the]
inspection information form. Secretary’s
Response to Respondent’s
Request for Depositions at 2. Thus, Respondent will have been provided with “[t]he fundamental
requirement of procedural due process [by] the opportunity to be heard >at a meaningful time and
in a meaningful manner appropriate to the nature of the case.” Capital Cement Corp., 21
FMSHRC 883, 887 (Aug. 1999). See also, Sec. v. Cactus Canyon Quarries of
Texas, Inc. , 2013 WL 1856602, March 2013 (Judge Barbour).

As the Secretary observes, pursuant
to 29 C.F.R. §2700.107,
discovery where a matter has been designated for simplified proceedings, is not
permitted except as ordered by the Court. Significantly, as the Secretary also
points out, even where a matter is not under simplified proceedings, the
Court has the discretion to determine in any Mine Act matter whether discovery
should be limited in the interests of time, burden to the parties, and expense.
Discovery may be limited “to
prevent undue delay or to protect a party or person from oppression or undue
burden or expense.” 29
C.F.R. § 2700.56(c). Here,
the reasons put forth by the Respondent in its “Defendants
Response” simply
asserts that due process includes depositions. As explained, that claim is
incorrect and the Respondent has not offered any cognizable reason why the
discovery allowed is insufficient.

So ordered.

/s/ William B. Moran

William B. Moran

Administrative Law Judge

Distribution:

Daniel McIntyre, Esq., U.S. Department of Labor, Office of
the Solicitor-MLBP, 1999 Broadway, Suite 800, Denver, CO 80202-5708

John Richards, Owner, John Richards Construction, P.O. Box
276, Seeley Lake, MT 59868

[1]Any
attendee requiring special accessibility features and/or any auxiliary aids
(such as sign language interpreters) must make such a request sufficiently in
advance of the hearing to allow for accommodation, subject to the limitations
set forth in 29 C.F.R. §§
2706.150(a) and 2706.160(d).