Coal Country Mining (ALJ decision, August 8, 2011)

Plain-English summary

The Secretary sought default and $3,971 in penalties because Coal Country Mining had not completed its prehearing exchange or meaningfully discussed settlement. The company's representative explained that the business had closed and the owner was difficult to contact, but that witness information had since been supplied, documents were being sought, and depositions were scheduled. Judge William B. Moran found that default was too harsh at that stage and denied the motion. He warned that late disclosure could lead to exclusion of witnesses or exhibits and that further failure to obey orders could support a show-cause order and default.

Decision snapshot

• Governing provision: 29 C.F.R. § 2700.66
• Outcome: The Secretary's motion for default was denied.
• Key point: Explained prehearing delays may avoid immediate default, but continued noncompliance can lead to evidence exclusion or a show-cause order.

Full text (FMSHRC public release)

FMSRHC ALJ DECISION

FEDERAL MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION

601 NEW JERSEY AVENUE N.W., SUITE 9500

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20001

(202) 434-9933

August 8, 2011

SECRETARY OF LABOR,

MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH

ADMINISTRATION, (MSHA),

Petitioner

v.

COAL COUNTRY MINING,

Respondent

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

CIVIL PENALTY PROCEEDING

Docket No. WEVA 2010-509

A.C. No. 46-08884-206855

Mine No. 58

ORDER ON SECRETARY’S MOTION FOR DEFAULT

The Secretary has filed a motion for default judgment “affirming the inspectors’ findings regarding gravity and negligence and the Secretary’s representations regarding the Respondent’s prior history of violations, size, ability to continue in business, and good faith abatement for Citation Nos. 8093615, 8093616, 8093619, 8098370, 8098372, and 809373; and that an Order be issued directing the Respondent to pay in full the $3,971.00 in civil penalties assessed.”

Motion
at 1. The Secretary notes that, per this Court’s Prehearing Order, the prehearing exchange was to have occurred by July 18, 2011. In the Motion the Secretary adds that it has made several attempts to at least discuss the possibility of settlement. In fairness, the Respondent’s representative, as related in the Secretary’s Motion, advised the Secretary that his client had closed his business and that he was “trying desperately to contact him.” Id. at 4.

The Secretary maintains that the failures of the Respondent’s representative to confer regarding settlement and to exchange the information for hearing, both required by the Court’s Prehearing Order, constitute bases for default. Id. at 5. Respondent’s representative filed its opposition to the motion. While other matters were included in the opposition, the Court notes here only facts it deems to be essential to the present motion. Essentially, the representative has provided reasons for deficiencies with its prehearing exchange requirements. As of the date of its Opposition to the motion, Respondent’s representative relates that it now has provided a list of witnesses to the Secretary, that it is searching for documents requested by the Secretary and that the parties have set depositions for August 11th and 12th, 2011. The Opposition also relates that Darrell Felts, owner of Respondent Coal Country Mining, Inc., wants his opportunity for a hearing in this matter and that prior deficiencies with the prehearing order have been explained on the basis that the Respondent had abandoned his business and that difficulties in contacting Felts has been explained by the representative.

The Court agrees that default is a harsh remedy

and in that light has determined that the
Respondent’s representative has put forth sufficient information to establish that it would be unwarranted at least at this juncture in the proceeding. However, as the Court noted in its August 5th email to the parties, “the Respondent is advised that any failure to exchange exhibits and identify witnesses can adversely affect the evidence it will be permitted to offer at the hearing. The shorter the time before the hearing for disclosure of such information, the greater the likelihood that such evidence or witnesses may be precluded from being part of the evidentiary record. The Court's prehearing order speaks to the parties' obligations for prehearing exchanges.”

Accordingly, the Secretary’s Motion is DENIED. However, Respondent is particularly advised that, per 29 C.F.R. § 2700.66, failure “to comply with an order of the Judge or these rules” can result in an Order to Show Cause requiring the impacted party to demonstrate why default would not be warranted.

_________

William B. Moran

Administrative Law Judge

Distribution:

Matthew Ross, Esquire, Office of the Solicitor, U.S. Department of Labor, 1100 Wilson Blvd, 22nd Floor West, Arlington, VA 22209-2247

James F. Bowman, Bowman Industries, LLC, P.O. Box 99, Midway, WV 25878