29 C.F.R. § 102.30

Depositions; examination of witnesses

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

Witnesses must be examined orally under oath at a hearing, except that for good cause shown after the issuance of a complaint, testimony may be taken by deposition.

(a) Applications to take depositions, including deposition testimony contemporaneously transmitted by videoconference, must be in writing and set forth the reasons why the depositions may be taken, the name, mailing address and email address (if available) of the witness, the matters concerning which it is expected the witness will testify, and the time and place proposed for taking the deposition, together with the name and mailing and email addresses of the person before whom it is desired that the deposition be taken (for the purposes of this section hereinafter referred to as the “officer”). Such application must be made to the Regional Director prior to the hearing, and to the Administrative Law Judge during and subsequent to the hearing but before transfer of the case to the Board pursuant to § 102.45 or § 102.50. Such application must be served on the Regional Director or the Administrative Law Judge, as the case may be, and on all other parties, not less than 7 days (when the deposition is to be taken within the continental United States) and 15 days (if the deposition is to be taken elsewhere) prior to the time when it is desired that the deposition be taken. The Regional Director or the Administrative Law Judge, as the case may be, will upon receipt of the application, if in the Regional Director's or Administrative Law Judge's discretion, good cause has been shown, make and serve on the parties an order specifying the name of the witness whose deposition is to be taken and the time, place, and designation of the officer before whom the witness is to testify, who may or may not be the same officer as that specified in the application. Such order will be served on all the other parties by the Regional Director or on all parties by the Administrative Law Judge.

(b) The deposition may be taken before any officer authorized to administer oaths by the laws of the United States or of the place where the examination is held, including any Board agent authorized to administer oaths. If the examination is held in a foreign country, it may be taken before any secretary of embassy or legation, consul general, consul, vice consul, or consular agent of the United States.

(c) At the time and place specified in the order, the officer designated to take the deposition will permit the witness to be examined and cross-examined under oath by all the parties appearing in person or by contemporaneous transmission through videoconference, and testimony shall be transcribed by the officer or under the officer's direction. All objections to questions or evidence will be deemed waived unless made at the examination. The officer will not have power to rule upon any objections but the objections will be noted in the deposition. The testimony must be subscribed by the witness to the satisfaction of the officer who will attach a certificate stating that the witness was duly sworn by the officer, that the deposition is a true record of the testimony and exhibits given by the witness, and that the officer is not of counsel or attorney to any of the parties nor interested in the event of the proceeding or investigation. If the deposition is not signed by the witness because the witness is ill, dead, cannot be found, or refuses to sign it, such fact will be included in the certificate of the officer and the deposition may then be used as fully as though signed. The officer will immediately deliver the transcript, together with the certificate, in person, by registered or certified mail, or by E-File to the Regional Director or Division of Judges' office handling the matter.

(d) The Administrative Law Judge will rule upon the admissibility of the deposition or any part of the deposition. A party may object to the admissibility of deposition testimony by videoconference on grounds that the taking of the deposition did not comply with appropriate safeguards as set forth in § 102.35(c), provided that the party opposing the admission of the deposition raised deficiencies in safeguards at the time of the deposition when corrections might have been made.

(e) All errors or irregularities in compliance with the provisions of this section will be deemed waived unless a motion to suppress the deposition in whole or part is made with reasonable promptness after such defect is or, with due diligence, might have been ascertained.

(f) If the parties so stipulate in writing, depositions may be taken before any person at any time or place, upon any notice and in any manner, and when so taken may be used like other depositions.

(g) The official record of the deposition testimony will be the official transcript prepared by the officer designated to transcribe the deposition testimony.

[82 FR 11754, Feb. 24, 2017, as amended at 82 FR 43696, 43967, Sept. 19, 2017]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 18 cases, 1964–1996 · leading case: Title Guarantee Co. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., 534 F.2d 484 (2d Cir. 1976).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Title Guarantee Co. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., 534 F.2d 484 (2d Cir. 1976). “Since 1935 the Board rule pertaining to an enforcement proceeding, now contained in 29 C.F.R. § 102.30 (1975), has not provided for the taking of depositions for the purposes of discovery as in the case of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.”

Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Bakers of Paris, Inc., 929 F.2d 1427 (9th Cir. 1991). “First, there is no indication that Bakers followed the Board’s Rules and Regulations for taking depositions, see 29 C.F.R. § 102.30 , in taking the statements in question.”

Harvey's Wagon Wheel, Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., 550 F.2d 1139 (9th Cir. 1976). “” 29 C.F.R. §§ 102.30 , 102.117, 102.118 (1976).”

Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. North Bay Plumbing, Inc. Patrick Pettit Elmer Lee Pettit David A. Adams, 102 F.3d 1005 (9th Cir. 1996). “Contrary to North Bay’s argument, 29 C.F.R. § 102.30 does not expressly prohibit the use of pre-complaint subpoenas requiring testimony.”

P.S.C. Resources, Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., 576 F.2d 380 (1st Cir. 1978). “The company’s position of control over these persons’ livelihoods mandates protection that is not *387 usually necessary in ordinary litigation.”

Roger J. Au & Son, Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., 538 F.2d 80 (3rd Cir. 1976). “29 C.F.R. §§ 102.30 , 102.118(a) (1975). Statements in the NLRB’s case file are made available for the purpose of cross-examination after a witness has testified.”

Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Hardeman Garment Corp., & Lauderdale Garment Corp., 557 F.2d 559 (6th Cir. 1977). “See also 29 C.F.R. § 102.30 (1975). 5 . See e. g„ 110 Cong.”

Kenrich Petrochemicals, Inc., Petitioner/cross-Respondent v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., Respondent/cross-Petitioner, 893 F.2d 1468 (3rd Cir. 1990). “” 29 C.F.R. § 102.30 . . That finding has gone unchallenged in this appeal.”

Electromec Design & Dev. Co., Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., 409 F.2d 631 (9th Cir. 1969). “The regulations of the National Labor Relations Board relating to the conduct of hearings before the Board or Trial Examiner at 29 C.F.R. § 102.30 (1968) provide, in part : “Witnesses shall be examined orally under oath except that for good cause shown after the issuance of a…”

Harvey Aluminum (Inc.) v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., 335 F.2d 749 (9th Cir. 1964). “29 C.F.R. 102.30 (1964) 25 Both the Jencks case and the Jencks Act include such transcribed oral statements.”

D'Yourville Manor, Lowell, Massachusetts, Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., 526 F.2d 3 (1st Cir. 1975). “1961), it suggests that we should follow the practice of the fifth circuit and construe § 10(b) of the Act and 29 C.F.R. § 102.30 to provide for pre-hearing discovery for good cause shown.”

Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. C. H. Sprague & Son Co., & Chauffeurs, Teamsters & Helpers Local Union 633, Intervenor, 428 F.2d 938 (1st Cir. 1970). “29 C.F.R. § 102.30 (a) (1968). However, this does not excuse counsel from taking such measures as will expedite the proceedings.”

Show all 18 citing cases →

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.