93 F.R.D. 619 (N.D.Tex. 1982), C. A. CA 4-81-284-E, Texas Steel Co. v. Donovan
|Docket Nº:||Civ. A. CA 4-81-284-E, CA 4-81-286.|
|Citation:||93 F.R.D. 619|
|Opinion Judge:||MAHON, District Judge.|
|Party Name:||TEXAS STEEL COMPANY v. Raymond J DONOVAN, Secretary of Labor, United States Department of Labor, et al.|
|Attorney:||James L. Morris, Gardere & Wynne, Dallas, Tex., for plaintiff. Barbara G. Heptig, Dallas, Tex., for defendants.|
|Case Date:||March 12, 1982|
|Court:||United States District Courts, 5th Circuit, Northern District of Texas|
Upon plaintiff's motion to compel answers to interrogatories and to require production of documents and subpoenaed materials in suit in which plaintiff claimed that OSHA regulation which allowed defendants to obtain ex parte search warrant was invalid, the District Court, Mahon, J., held that: (1) plaintiff would be permitted to conduct discovery beyond the administrative record in order to determine whether the administrative record was complete providing it could demonstrate some reasonable basis for believing that the administrative record was incomplete; however, plaintiff did not have to show that the agency acted in " bad faith," before such discovery would be allowed but merely had to produce reasonable evidence so that court could determine whether the " whole" record had been filed, and (2) after complete record was before the court, plaintiff would be permitted to conduct discovery beyond the administrative record if it made a substantial showing that the complete record was inadequate to explain agency's adoption of the regulation in question; plaintiff could conduct discovery beyond administrative record if it made a strong showing of improper behavior or bad faith by the agency.
Motion to compel denied without prejudice to refile motion in compliance with the order.
There is pending before the Court plaintiff's motion to compel answers to interrogatories and to require production of documents and subpoenaed materials. After careful review of said motion and the parties' briefs, the Court makes the following ruling.
I. Statement of Facts.
Plaintiff, Texas Steel Company owns and operates a manufacturing facility and is engaged in interstate commerce and is located in Fort Worth, Texas. On May 7, 1980, defendant, Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) received a safety complaint from the president of the union representing employees at plaintiff's Fort Worth facility. This complaint...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP