29 C.F.R. § 18.54
Stipulations about discovery procedure
Unless the judge orders otherwise, the parties may stipulate that:
(a) A deposition may be taken before any person, at any time or place, on any notice, and in the manner specified—in which event it may be used in the same way as any other deposition; and
(b) Other procedures governing or limiting discovery be modified— but a stipulation extending the time for any form of discovery must have the judge's approval if it would interfere with the time set for completing discovery, for hearing a motion, or for hearing.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6
cases, 1997–2011 · leading case: McNeill v. United States Dep't of Labor, 243 F. App'x 93 (6th Cir. 2007).
McNeill v. United States Dep't of Labor, 243 F. App'x 93 (6th Cir. 2007). “, it could not reopen the record unless the party movant demonstrated that there was “ ‘new and material evidence [that] has become available which was not readily available prior to the closing of the record.”
Copart, Inc. v. Admin. Review Bd., 184 F. App'x 711 (10th Cir. 2006). “” The ARB noted that under 29 C.F.R. § 18.54 (c), “ ‘[ojnce the record is closed, no additional evidence shall be accepted into the record except upon a showing that new and material evidence has become available which was not readily available prior to the closing of the record.”
United States Dep't of Labor v. Copart, Inc., 431 F. App'x 758 (10th Cir. 2011). “The new evidence of the date of Copart’s cessation of trucking operations could not have been admitted at the administrative level because it did not exist at the time of the hearing.”
Patrickson v. U.S. Dep't of Labor, 303 F. App'x 904 (2d Cir. 2008). “Denial of Motion to Submit New Evidence Patrickson submits that the Board nevertheless erred when it denied his motion, made pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 18.54 (c) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b), to submit new evidence, namely, transcripts of interviews conducted as part of the Nuclear…”
Patrickson v. U.S. Dep't of Labor, 303 F. App'x 904 (2d Cir. 2008). “Denial of Motion to Submit New Evidence Patrickson submits that the Board nevertheless erred when it denied his motion, made pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 18.54 (c) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b), to submit new evidence, namely, transcripts of interviews conducted as part of the Nuclear…”
Abacus Temp. Ser v. Hicks (4th Cir. 1997). “" 29 C.F.R. § 18.54 . Abacus makes no claim that this requirement was met here.”
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.