(a) Form. All motions, except those made during a prehearing conference or a hearing, must be in writing. All motions must include a statement of the reasons supporting them. Written motions must be filed with the judge or the Board, as appropriate, and must be served upon all other parties in accordance with § 1201.26(b)(2) of this part. A party filing a motion for extension of time, a motion for postponement of a hearing, or any other procedural motion must first contact the other party to determine whether there is any objection to the motion, and must state in the motion whether the other party has an objection.
(b) Objection. Unless the judge provides otherwise, any objection to a written motion must be filed within 10 days from the date of service of the motion. Judges, in their discretion, may grant or deny motions for extensions of time to file pleadings without providing any opportunity to respond to the motions.
(c) Motions for extension of time. Motions for extension of time will be granted only on a showing of good cause.
(d) Motions for protective orders. A motion for an order under 5 U.S.C. 1204(e)(1)(B) to protect a witness or other individual from harassment must be filed as early in the proceeding as practicable. The party seeking a protective order must include a concise statement of reasons justifying the motion, together with any relevant documentary evidence. An agency, other than the Office of Special Counsel, may not request such an order with respect to an investigation by the Special Counsel during the Special Counsel's investigation. An order issued under this paragraph may be enforced in the same manner as provided under subpart F for Board final decisions and orders.
[54 FR 53504, Dec. 29, 1989, as amended at 62 FR 17045, Apr. 9, 1997]
Notes of Decisions
Jones v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 589 F. App'x 972 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
“5 C.F.R. § 1201.55 (c) (2013). The record reflects that Jones’s governing collective bargaining agreement allowed for claims of discrimination to be raised in the course of a grievance proceeding.”
Koch v. Sec. & Exch. Comm'n, 48 F. App'x 778 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
“Requests for extensions of time are granted only upon a showing of good cause, 5 C.F.R. § 1201.55 (c), and the Board’s decisions on such matters are reviewed for an abuse of discretion.”
Bruce A. McKowen v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 703 F.2d 14 (1st Cir. 1983).
“; 5 C.F.R. § 1201.55 . The Board’s finding that the Agency had shown good cause for an extension is consistent with the Board’s findings in other cases.”
Tilley v. Frank, 728 F. Supp. 1293 (M.D. La. 1990).
“The statute, 5 C.F.R. § 1201.55 (a), provides for the filing of motions for extension of time and postponement of a hearing.”
Ow-Taylor v. Overseas Private Inv. Corp., 8 F. App'x 957 (Fed. Cir. 2001).
“5 C.F.R. § 1201.55 (c) (2000). The administrative judge was thus within his discretion to deny an extension of discovery simply because Ms.”
Patacca v. Navy (Fed. Cir. 2019).
· cites it 3× “The AJ denied the motion, stating that the “unilateral request for delay is denied without exception for failure to comply with the Board’s requirements,” citing 5 C.F.R. § 1201.55 (a), (c). R.A. 120 (“Order Denying Request for De- lay”).”
Joey Gonzalez v. Dep't of Agric. (MSPB 2023).
· cites it 2× “We grant the appellant’s unopposed motion to lift the protective order pertaining to agency officials’ depositions and vacate the protective order to the extent the record does not reflect that it meets the requirements and purpose of the Board’s regulation at 5 C.F.R. § 1201.55…”
Kyung S. Im v. Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp. (MSPB 2015).
· cites it 2× “To the extent that these allegations could be considered a request for a protective order pursuant to 5 C.F.R. § 1201.55 (d), the Board will not grant such an order based on mere speculation.”
Diana E. Cantu v. Dep't of Homeland Sec. (MSPB 2016).
“5 C.F.R. §§ 1201.55 (a), 1201.73(c). The appellant does not assert that she filed a motion to compel, and the record reflects that the appellant did not submit any motion regarding discovery matters to the Board.”
McLaughlin v. MSPB (Fed. Cir. 2021).
“See 5 C.F.R. § 1201.55 (b). Given the intervening government shutdown and corresponding extension of deadlines, McLaughlin’s January 28, 2019 reply, which responded to the Agency’s motion, was, therefore, timely filed and should have been considered by the AJ.”
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.