FEDERAL MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION
601 NEW JERSEY AVENUE, NW
SUITE 9500
WASHINGTON, DC 20001
November 23, 2010
JUSTIN NAGEL
v. NEWMONT USA LIMITED |
: : : : : |
|
BEFORE: Jordan, Chairman; Duffy, Young, Cohen, and Nakamura, Commissioners
DIRECTION FOR REVIEW AND ORDER
BY THE COMMISSION:
On January 5, 2010, Justin Nagel, acting pro se, filed a complaint of discrimination against Newmont USA Limited (“Newmont”) under section 105(c)(3) of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977, 30 U.S.C. § 815(c)(3) (2006). The case had a complex procedural history before the Administrative Law Judge (“the judge”), which culminated on October 27, 2010, when the judge issued an order entitled, “Order Certifying Interlocutory Discovery Ruling to the Commission; Order Granting Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Comply with Discovery Orders and Repeated Lack of Candor with Tribunal; Order Staying Dismissal Pending Commission Ruling on Certified Interlocutory Discovery Order.” We will refer to this combined order as the “October 27 Dismissal Order.” In this Direction for Review and Order, the Commission will consider whether to address two issues which Mr. Nagel has raised before the Commission, and will also address the legal implications of the Judge’s attempt to stay the October 27 Dismissal Order.
I.
Factual and Procedural Background
On September 24, 2010, the judge orally granted Newmont’s oral request that it be
allowed to hire private security guards for the scheduled September 28, 2010 deposition of Mr.
Nagel, and that all participants in said deposition submit to a reasonable search upon entry. This
oral order was confirmed by a written Order Granting Respondent’s Request for Security on
October 13, 2010. Mr. Nagel filed a document entitled “Petition for discretionary review” with
the Commission on October 26, 2010. In his October 27 Dismissal Order, the judge treated this
submission as a motion to certify this interlocutory ruling
under Commission Procedural Rule
76, 29 C.F.R. § 2700.76. He declined to certify the issue for interlocutory review, stating that the
order did not materially advance the final disposition of the proceeding and was moot because
the deposition had already occurred. Oct. 27 Dismissal Order at 17.
In addition, after a protracted discovery dispute involving recordings Mr. Nagel had made of conversations with representatives of Newmont management, the judge on October 18, 2010 issued an order partially granting Newmont’s motion to compel production of the recorded conversations. Although the judge ordered Mr. Nagel to produce copies of the audio tapes of in-person conversations with Newmont management (but not tapes of telephone conversations), Mr. Nagel did not comply with this order. Oct. 27 Dismissal Order at 5-6. On October 19, 2010, Newmont filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that Mr. Nagel had demonstrated a pattern of unwillingness to comply with direct orders from the judge. Oct. 27 Dismissal Order at 6. During a conference call on October 21, 2010, the judge issued an order to show cause why the case should not be dismissed due to Mr. Nagel’s failure to comply with the discovery order to produce the tapes. This was followed by a written show cause order issued on October 22. Id. at 11. Mr. Nagel responded to the motion to dismiss, stating that he intended to appeal the discovery order to the Commission. Id. at 10.
On October 25, 2010, Mr. Nagel filed a Petition for Discretionary Review, asking the Commission to review the judge’s order requiring him to turn over copies of the audio recordings. As with the petition relating to the hiring of private security guards, the judge treated this document as a motion for certification of his interlocutory discovery ruling. Unlike the issue of the private security guards, however, the judge ruled that the order to turn over the tapes involved a controlling question of law that would materially advance the final disposition of the proceeding, and certified the question to the Commission for interlocutory review. Id. at 16-17.
In his October 27 Dismissal Order, the judge discussed whether dismissal of the case as a discovery sanction was appropriate. He held that it was appropriate, due to Mr. Nagel’s “repeated failure to comply with discovery Orders and lack of candor with the tribunal, which has interfered substantially with a fair hearing in this matter, unduly burdened the record, and caused additional work, delay, and expense through refusal to comply with discovery Orders and Commission rules.” Id. at 18. He dismissed the case but stayed the dismissal pending the Commission’s ruling on the certified interlocutory discovery ruling. Id. at 23.
II.
Disposition
Before considering Mr. Nagel’s two petitions, we must first consider the legal
implications of the judge staying the October 27 Dismissal Order. In Capitol Aggregates, Inc., 2
FMSHRC 1040, 1041 (May 1980), the Commission held that a judge who had issued a stay of
his decision lacked the authority to issue the stay. See also Sec. of Labor on behalf of Pasula v.
Consolidation Coal Co., 1 FMSHRC 25 (Apr. 1979) (neither the Mine Act nor the
Commission’s Interim Rules of Procedure provide for a stay of the effective date of a judge’s
decision once the decision is issued).
Thus, if the judge in the present case lacked the authority
to issue the stay, the effect is that the October 27 Dismissal Order was a final decision which
commenced the running of the 30-day period in which a party may file a petition for
discretionary review under section 113(d)(2)(A)(i) of the Mine Act, 30 U.S.C. § 823(d)(2)(A)(i),
and Commission Procedural Rule 70(a), 29 C.F.R. § 2700.70(a). Because of the stay, Mr. Nagel
is not on notice that his time for filing a petition for discretionary review from the October 27
Dismissal Order is running.
For this reason, the Commission will, on its own motion pursuant to Commission Procedural Rule 71, 29 C.F.R. § 2700.71, review the October 27 Dismissal Order. Our review is limited to the issue of whether the judge had the authority to stay the effect of his decision. We conclude that he did not have this authority. Capitol Aggregates, Inc., supra at 1041. Therefore, we must vacate the October 27 Dismissal Order.
We have before us Mr. Nagel’s two petitions. Although these are styled as petitions for discretionary review under Rule 70, they are really – as the judge recognized – petitions for interlocutory review under Rule 76. Although the judge certified to the Commission, pursuant to Rule 76(a)(1)(i), the issue involving the partial granting of Newmont’s motion to compel production of audio tape recordings, which was appealed by Mr. Nagel in one of his petitions, we conclude that review of these issues is not appropriate at this time. We note that the Commission usually does not grant interlocutory review of discovery orders. See Asarco, Inc., 14 FMSHRC 1323, 1328 (Aug. 1992) (“unless there is a ‘manifest abuse of discretion’ on the part of a judge, discovery orders are not ordinarily subject to interlocutory appellate review”) (citations omitted); In re: Contests of Respirable Dust Sample Alteration Citations, 14 FMSHRC 987, 1004 (June 1992) (“discovery orders are usually not appealable”). Accordingly, we deny both petitions.
III.
Conclusion
Consequently, we vacate the judge’s Dismissal Order of October 27, 2010, and remand
the case to him for further proceedings consistent with this decision. Once the judge has issued a
final decision, a petition for discretionary review of that decision may be filed within 30 days
after issuance of the decision or order, pursuant to section 113(d)(2)(A)(i) of the Mine Act, 30
U.S.C. § 823(d)(2)(A)(i), and the Commission’s Procedural Rule 70(a), 29 C.F.R. § 2700.70(a).
If Mr. Nagel files a petition for discretionary review, he may include the issues set forth in his
interlocutory petitions on the security and discovery issues.
____________________________________
Mary Lu Jordan, Chairman
____________________________________
Michael F. Duffy, Commissioner
____________________________________
Michael G. Young, Commissioner
____________________________________
Robert F. Cohen, Jr., Commissioner
____________________________________
Patrick K. Nakamura, Commissioner
Distribution
Justin Nagel
P.O. Box 182
Rathdrum, ID 83858
Richard Tucker
Newmont Mining Company
1655 Mountain City Highway
Elko, NV 89801
Donna Vetrano Pryor, Esq.
Patton Boggs, LLP
1801 California Street, Suite 4900
Denver, CO 80202
W. Christian Schumann, Esq.
Office of the Solicitor
U.S. Department of Labor
1100 Wilson Blvd., 22nd Floor
Arlington, VA 22209-2247
Administrative Law Judge Thomas McCarthy
Federal Mine Safety & Health Review Commission
Office of Administrative Law Judges
601 New Jersey Avenue, N.W., Suite 9500
Washington, D.C. 20001-2021