Subpart M
Discovery in Simplified Proceedings is allowed only as the Judge orders and only within the time limits and conditions the Judge sets. See 2200.208 for the rule that discovery, including requests for admissions, is permitted only under the Judge’s conditions and deadlines.
Yes. The Judge controls both the conditions and the time limits for any discovery in Simplified Proceedings. Refer to 2200.208 which states that discovery will only be allowed under the conditions and time limits set by the Judge.
Yes. Requests for admissions are explicitly included as a form of discovery that may be allowed, but only under the conditions and time limits the Judge sets. See 2200.208.
No; discovery cannot be served without limits because the Judge sets conditions and time limits to prevent abuse or undue delay. The party objecting to excessive discovery should bring the issue to the Judge under the authority of 2200.208.
A party should file a motion with the Judge explaining the specific need for additional discovery and why the requested material is relevant and cannot be obtained otherwise; the Judge will decide under the conditions of 2200.208.
The Judge resolves any disputes about the timing or scope of discovery because discovery is allowed only under the Judge’s conditions and time limits. See 2200.208.
Yes. When the Judge permits discovery, parties must follow the conditions and time limits the Judge establishes; failure to comply can be raised with the Judge under 2200.208.
No. 2200.208 does not list specific discovery devices beyond mentioning requests for admissions; whether other forms (like interrogatories or document requests) are allowed depends on the Judge’s conditions and time limits. See 2200.208.
A party should raise discovery needs or objections promptly with the Judge and follow any schedule the Judge sets, because discovery is governed by the Judge’s conditions and time limits as stated in 2200.208.
Yes; requests for admissions may be used to narrow contested facts or issues if the Judge allows them under the conditions and time limits the Judge sets. This use is consistent with 2200.208, which permits requests for admissions as part of discovery when authorized by the Judge.
No, not all settlement agreements are placed on OSHA’s website, and employers generally cannot expect blanket confidentiality because settlement agreements remain subject to public disclosure under FOIA. The interpretation explains that major settlement agreements are posted on the OSHA web site but the vast majority are not put on the site, though they are still subject to disclosure under FOIA; see OSHA’s response in the September 27, 2004 Letter of Interpretation.
No; OSHA posts citations and proposed penalties dating back to the start of OSHA and does not remove them simply because they are old, because the posted information reflects what would be available under FOIA. See the September 27, 2004 Letter of Interpretation for OSHA’s explanation that historical citations remain publicly available on the OSHA website.
Yes; the Letter of Interpretation notes that the Review Commission rules (cited in that letter) provide that settlement agreements shall be posted in the same manner that employers are required to post citations and notices of contest, and that OSHA posts major settlement agreements on its website. See the discussion in the September 27, 2004 Letter of Interpretation.
An employer can request confidentiality, but OSHA’s practice is that major settlement agreements are public and posted on the website; many settlement agreements are not posted but remain subject to FOIA, so confidentiality cannot be guaranteed. The September 27, 2004 Letter of Interpretation explains OSHA’s approach to posting settlement agreements and FOIA disclosure.