Prehearing conferences procedures

The Judge may hold a scheduling conference at the Judge's discretion within 30 days after the filing of the answer. Under 2200.51(a), the Judge may consult with attorneys, non-attorney representatives, and self-represented parties and enter a scheduling order within that 30-day window.

• The Judge's use of a conference is discretionary, not mandatory.
• The conference can be by telephone, mail, or other suitable means as described in 2200.51(a).

A scheduling order may set a time limit to join other parties and to amend the pleadings. Specifically, 2200.51(a)(1)(i) authorizes the Judge to limit the period for adding parties or amending pleadings in the scheduling order.

• If a party wants more time to amend or join parties they should request it from the Judge before the scheduling deadline expires.

Yes. The Judge may set deadlines to file and hear motions in the scheduling order. 2200.51(a)(1)(ii) specifically allows the Judge to limit the time to file and hear motions.

• Parties should review the scheduling order carefully and comply with motion filing and hearing dates or move for extension before those dates.

A scheduling order may limit the time to complete discovery. 2200.51(a)(1)(iii) allows the Judge to set discovery completion deadlines to keep the case on schedule.

• "Complete discovery" means finishing written discovery, depositions, and document exchanges by the date set in the scheduling order.

Yes. The scheduling order may include the date or dates for conferences before hearing, a final prehearing conference, and the hearing. 2200.51(a)(2)(i) authorizes the Judge to include those specific dates in the scheduling order.

• Parties should calendar those dates immediately and prepare any required prehearing submissions.

A scheduling order may include any other matters appropriate to the circumstances of the case. 2200.51(a)(2)(ii) gives the Judge flexibility to address case-specific needs such as protective orders, page limits on briefs, or sequencing of issues.

• If parties believe a particular procedural matter should be included, they should raise it at the scheduling conference or by motion.

Yes. The Judge may direct the parties to confer among themselves to consider settlement, stipulation of facts, or other matters to expedite the hearing. 2200.51(b) allows the Judge, on the Judge's own initiative or on a party's motion, to order such conferences.

• This direction may be part of prehearing procedures and supplements Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16 requirements.

Yes. The Judge may consult with self-represented parties as part of a scheduling conference. 2200.51(a) expressly includes self-represented parties among those the Judge may consult.

• Self-represented parties should be prepared to discuss scheduling, discovery needs, and settlement possibilities.

The Judge may use telephone, mail, or other suitable means to conduct a scheduling conference. 2200.51(a) allows flexibility in communication method to accommodate the parties and the court.

• Parties should confirm the chosen method and ensure they can participate (e.g., phone lines, email access) on the scheduled date.

No. While subsection (a)(1) lists specific time limits the scheduling order may include, subsection (a)(2) allows the Judge to add dates and any other appropriate matters, so the order is not strictly limited. See 2200.51(a)(1) and 2200.51(a)(2).

• This gives the Judge discretion to tailor the scheduling order to the needs of the case.

Yes. The Judge may direct parties to consider stipulation of facts as a means to expedite the hearing. 2200.51(b) explicitly lists stipulation of facts as one of the subjects parties may be directed to confer about.

• Stipulations narrow disputed issues and can shorten hearings when factual agreements are reached.

The prehearing procedures in 2200.51 supplement the scheduling and pretrial conference concepts in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16 by allowing the Judge to hold scheduling conferences and enter scheduling orders. 2200.51(b) references FRCP 16 as part of the prehearing framework.

• Parties familiar with FRCP 16 should expect similar topics—deadlines, discovery limits, settlement discussions—under 2200.51 procedures.

Failing to meet a scheduling order discovery deadline can lead the Judge to deny late discovery, refuse extensions, or impose sanctions. 2200.51(a)(1)(iii) empowers the Judge to set discovery deadlines, and judges commonly enforce them to keep cases on schedule.

• If a party needs more time, they should promptly move the Judge for an extension and explain good cause for the delay.

Yes. Parties can ask the Judge to hold a scheduling conference or enter a scheduling order; the Judge retains discretion to act on such a request. 2200.51(a) contemplates conferences at the Judge's discretion but does not forbid party-initiated requests.

• A formal motion or a joint proposed schedule are practical ways to prompt the Judge to issue a scheduling order.

No; while most settlement agreements are public and subject to FOIA, OSHA generally posts only major agreements to its web site but all settlements remain subject to public disclosure. The Letter of Interpretation explains that settlement agreements are public information and that most are not posted on the website but are still subject to disclosure under FOIA, and settlement agreements are posted in the same manner that citations are posted per the Review Commission rules. See the OSHA letter at https://www.osha.gov/laws-regs/standardinterpretations/2004-09-27-0 and 2200 for the Review Commission rules reference.

• Employers cannot expect confidentiality simply by agreement; FOIA and posting rules may require disclosure.