C.F.R. » Title 40 » CHAPTER I—ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY › SUBCHAPTER E—PESTICIDE PROGRAMS › PART 164—RULES OF PRACTICE GOVERNING HEARINGS, UNDER THE FEDERAL INSECTICIDE, FUNGICIDE, AND RODENTICIDE ACT, ARISING FROM REFUSALS TO REGISTER, CANCELLATIONS OF REGISTRATIONS, CHANGES OF CLASSIFICATIONS, SUSPENSIONS OF REGISTRATIONS AND OTHER HEARINGS CALLED PURSUANT TO SECTION 6 OF THE ACT › Subpart B—General Rules …

40 C.F.R. § 164.51

Other discovery

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

(a) General. Except as so provided by § 164.50(b) supra, further discovery, under this subpart, shall be permitted only upon determination by the Administrative Law Judge (1) that such discovery shall not in any way unreasonably delay the proceeding, (2) that the information to be obtained is not otherwise obtainable and (3) that such information has significant probative value. The Administrative Law Judge shall be guided by the procedures set forth in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, where practicable, and the precedents thereunder, except that no discovery shall be undertaken except upon order of the Administrative Law Judge or upon agreement of the parties.

(b) Depositions upon oral questions. The Administrative Law Judge shall order depositions upon oral questions only upon a showing of good cause and upon a finding that (1) the information sought cannot be obtained by alternative methods, or (2) there is a substantial reason to believe that relevant and probative evidence may otherwise not be preserved for presentation by a witness at the hearing.

(c) Procedure. (1) Any party to the proceeding desiring discovery shall make a motion or motions therefor. Such a motion shall set forth (i) the circumstances warranting the taking of the discovery, (ii) the nature of the information expected to be discovered and (iii) the proposed time and place where it will be taken.

(2) If the Administrative Law Judge determines the motion should be granted, he shall issue an order and appropriate subpoenas, if necessary, for the taking of such discovery together with the conditions and terms thereof.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 1 case, 1982–1982 · leading case: The Dow Chem. Co., Intervening v. Dr. James R. Allen & John Van Miller, & James P. Wachtendonk, Intervening, 672 F.2d 1262 (7th Cir. 1982).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
The Dow Chem. Co., Intervening v. Dr. James R. Allen & John Van Miller, & James P. Wachtendonk, Intervening, 672 F.2d 1262 (7th Cir. 1982). “70 (a), instead of the “significant probative value” test of 40 C.F.R. § 164.51 , governs its right to pre-hearing discovery.”
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.