29 C.F.R. § 2200.51

Prehearing conferences and orders

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

(a) Scheduling conference. (1) The Judge may, upon the Judge's discretion, consult with the attorneys, non-attorney party representatives, and any self-represented parties, by a scheduling conference, telephone, mail, or other suitable means, and within 30 days after the filing of the answer, enter a scheduling order that limits the time:

(i) To join other parties and to amend the pleadings;

(ii) To file and hear motions; and

(iii) To complete discovery.

(2) The scheduling order also may include:

(i) The date or dates for conferences before hearing, a final prehearing conference, and hearing; and

(ii) Any other matters appropriate to the circumstances of the case.

(b) Prehearing conference. In addition to the prehearing procedures set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16, the Judge may, upon the Judge's own initiative or on the motion of a party, direct the parties to confer among themselves to consider settlement, stipulation of facts, or any other matter that may expedite the hearing.

(c) Compliance. Parties must fully prepare for a useful discussion of all procedural and substantive issues involved in prehearing conferences and shall participate in such conferences in good faith. Parties failing to do so may be subject to sanctions under §§ 2200.101 and 2200.104.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 3 cases, 1977–2019 · leading case: Todd Shipyards Corp., Petitioner, v. Sec'y of Labor, Respondent, 586 F.2d 683 (9th Cir. 1978).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Todd Shipyards Corp., Petitioner, v. Sec'y of Labor, Respondent, 586 F.2d 683 (9th Cir. 1978). “For example, after the Secretary has filed his complaint with the Commission, the employer can move for a more definite statement.”

Excel Modular Scaffold & Lsng v. OSHC, 943 F.3d 748 (5th Cir. 2019). “” 29 C.F.R. § 2200.51 (b). The same regulation provides that the ALJ may utilize the “prehearing procedures set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16,” id.”

Usery v. Marquette Cement Mfg. Co., 568 F.2d 902 (2d Cir. 1977). “16, the Commission’s rule does not provide that the pre-hearing order will control the subsequent course of the action. The stipulation in the instant case does not even fall within the Commission’s own rule, for it was not formulated under the supervision, or confirmed by an…”

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.