5 C.F.R. § 1201.71
Purpose of discovery
Proceedings before the Board will be conducted as expeditiously as possible with due regard to the rights of the parties. Discovery is designed to enable a party to obtain relevant information needed to prepare the party's case. These regulations are intended to provide a simple method of discovery. They will be interpreted and applied so as to avoid delay and to facilitate adjudication of the case. Parties are expected to start and complete discovery with a minimum of Board intervention. Discovery requests and responses thereto are not to be filed in the first instance with the Board. They are only filed with the Board in connection with a motion to compel discovery under 1201.73(c) of this part, with a motion to subpoena discovery under 1201.73(d) of this part, or as substantive evidence to be considered in the appeal.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 36
cases (22 in the last 5 years), 1994–2026 · leading case: Chong McClenning v. Dep't of the Army, 2022 MSPB 3 (MSPB 2022).
Chong McClenning v. Dep't of the Army, 2022 MSPB 3 (MSPB 2022). “5 C.F.R. §§ 1201.71 -.75. The appellant may generally raise additional claims or defenses before the end of the conference(s) held to define the issues in the case; after that point, the appellant may raise additional claims or defenses only upon a showing of good cause.”
William Ralph Pumphrey v. Dep't of Def., 2015 MSPB 10 (MSPB 2015). “t and motion to compel were both untimely, IAF, Tabs 17-18, and he has not presented any persuasive basis for excusing his failure to comply with the Board’s regulations regarding timely discovery, see Consolidated Appeal File, Tab 1 at 4-5 (the administrative judge’s furlough…”
Mitchell v. Espy, 845 F. Supp. 1474 (D. Kan. 1994). “Plaintiff submitted discovery requests to the agency pursuant to the discovery rules contained in 5 C.F.R. § 1201.71 et seq. Plaintiffs Exh.”
Dannice E. Clark v. United States Postal Serv., 2016 MSPB 26 (MSPB 2016). “IAF, Tab 2 at 3; 5 C.F.R. § 1201.71 ; see King v. Department of the Navy, 98 M.”
Dannice E. Clark v. United States Postal Serv., 2016 MSPB 26 (MSPB 2016). “IAF, Tab 2 at 3; 5 C.F.R. § 1201.71 ; see King v. Department of the Navy, 98 M.”
In re Anniston Depot, Grp. 1 v. Dep't of the Army (MSPB 2015). “They suggest that proper responses to their discovery requests may have shown that the agency should have exempted some appellants from the furloughs based upon the funding for their positions, or that the furlough ultimately cost the agency more money than it saved. G1PFR File,…”
Steven L. Parker v. Dep't of the Army (MSPB 2016). “5 C.F.R. § 1201.71 . The appellant alleges that he was denied due process when the administrative judge denied his request to depose the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller).”
Jose E. Rosario-Fabregas v. Dep't of the Army (MSPB 2016). “The appellant filed a pleading below titled as his opposition to the agency’s response and discovery, IAF, Tab 10, but he did not file a motion to compel discovery in accordance with the Board’s regulations, 5 C.F.R. §§ 1201.71 -.85, which the administrative judge set forth in…”
Joaquin Alvarez v. United States Postal Serv. (MSPB 2016). “5 C.F.R. § 1201.71 ; see King v. Department of the Navy, 98 M.”
Beverly Martin v. United States Postal Serv. (MSPB 2023). “The rules governing discovery in Board proceedings are set out in the Board ’s regulations at 5 C.F.R. §§ 1201.71 -.75. These regulations require that “[d]iscovery must be completed within the time period designated by the judge .”
Robert Fields v. Dep't of the Interior (MSPB 2022). “IAF, Tab 21 at 9; 5 C.F.R. §§ 1201.71 , 1201.73. She denied the second request both because she found that the agency had properly responded to the appellant’s discovery requests, and because the appellant’s deadline to compel a further response had passed.”
Stuart Harrow v. Dep't of Def. (MSPB 2022). “5 C.F.R. § 1201.71 . Relevant information includes information that appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.”
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.