29 C.F.R. § 18.14
Ex parte communication
The parties, their representatives, or other interested persons must not engage in ex parte communications on the merits of a case with the judge.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3
cases, 2003–2008 · leading case: Nat'l Ass'n of Waterfront Employers v. Chao, 587 F. Supp. 2d 90 (D.D.C. 2008).
Nat'l Ass'n of Waterfront Employers v. Chao, 587 F. Supp. 2d 90 (D.D.C. 2008). “, 29 C.F.R. §§ 18.14 (a) (discovery of any relevant matter that is not privileged is allowed), 18.”
Prince v. Island Creek Coal Co., 76 F. App'x 67 (6th Cir. 2003). “Rejecting this contention, the BRB held as follows: Contrary to claimant’s contention, the Board has held that the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and specifically Rule 26, do not govern the scope of discovery in black lung cases, but that the standard for the scope of…”
Elm Grove Coal Co. v. Dir., Off. of Workers' Comp. Programs, 480 F.3d 278 (4th Cir. 2007). “29 C.F.R. § 18.14 (c). This rule of procedure is essentially identical to the work product doctrine set forth in Rule 26(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (the “Federal Rules”).”
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.