(a) Explanation. Discovery is the process, apart from the hearing, by which a party may obtain relevant information, including the identification of potential witnesses, from a party or nonparty, that the other party or nonparty has not otherwise provided. Relevant information includes information that appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. This information is obtained to assist the parties in preparing and presenting their cases. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure may be used as a general guide for discovery practices in proceedings before the Board. Those rules, however, are instructive rather than controlling.
(b) Scope. Discovery covers any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to the issues involved in the appeal, including the existence, description, nature, custody, condition, and location of documents or other tangible things, and the identity and location of persons with knowledge of relevant facts. Discovery requests that are directed to nonparties and nonparty Federal agencies and employees are limited to information that appears directly material to the issues involved in the appeal.
(c) Methods. Parties may use one or more of the following methods for obtaining discovery from parties or nonparties: written interrogatories, depositions, requests for production of documents or things for inspection or copying, and requests for admission. These methods include written interrogatories to parties, depositions, requests for production of documents or things for inspection or copying, and requests for admission.
(d) Limitations. The judge may limit the frequency or extent of use of the discovery methods permitted by these regulations. Such limitations may be imposed if the judge finds that:
(1) The discovery sought is cumulative or duplicative, or is obtainable from some other source that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive;
(2) The party seeking discovery has had sufficient opportunity through discovery in the action to obtain the information sought; or
(3) The burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit.
[68 FR 54651, Sept. 18, 2003, as amended at 73 FR 18150, Apr. 3, 2008; 73 FR 21415, Apr. 21, 2008; 89 FR 72961, Sept. 9, 2024]
Notes of Decisions
Siler v. Envtl. Prot. Agency, 908 F.3d 1291 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
“" 5 C.F.R. § 1201.72 (b). As in district courts, a party who seeks to withhold discovery based on privilege has the burden of showing privilege applies.”
Karl Brookins v. Dep't of the Interior, 2023 MSPB 3 (MSPB 2023).
“PFR File, Tab 4 at 4; see 5 C.F.R. § 1201.72 (a). However, in light of the clarified jurisdictional 8 The Board has held that, to elect its procedure under 5 U.”
Kalmin v. Dep't of the Navy, 605 F. Supp. 1492 (D.D.C. 1985).
“See 5 C.F.R. § 1201.72 (c) (1985). 4 . Also presently pending are plaintiffs motions for leave to amend his complaint once again and to compel defendant to amplify its Vaughn index of the documents withheld.”
Thomas v. Off. of Pers. Mgmt., 350 F. App'x 448 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
“” 5 C.F.R. § 1201.72 (d)(3) (2008). Here, the AJ correctly noted that the IRR was the basic record for all annuity claims.”
Patterson v. Off. of Pers. Mgmt., 111 F. App'x 590 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
“Patterson's argument, that under 5 C.F.R. § 1201.72 (c) OPM admitted that he was qualified to enter at the GS-11 level by refusing to answer his request for admission, is misplaced.”
Sadler v. Army, 129 F.4th 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2025).
“” 5 C.F.R. § 1201.72 . It is thus appropriate for the Board to follow the instructive guidance of Rule 37 instead of earlier possibly relevant Board precedent approving a negligence standard (though that precedent did not directly address the special prob- lems presented by…”
Donald Pierce v. Dep't of the Air Force (MSPB 2024).
· cites it 4× “None of the information sought in the appellant’s pending discovery requests was relevant to the dispositive jurisdictional issue in this case or would have changed the outcome of the initial decision, and so remand is not necessary. Discovery is the process by which a party may…”
Doreen K. Kingsley v. United States Postal Serv., 2016 MSPB 21 (MSPB 2016).
“PFR File, Tab 3 at 5; see 5 C.F.R. § 1201.72 (a). An administrative judge has broad discretion in ruling on discovery matters, and absent an abuse of discretion the Board will not find reversible error in such rulings.”
Matthew Donahue v. Dep't of Just. (MSPB 2024).
· cites it 3× “The administrative judge denied the appellant’s motion to compel, deciding that the request for deposition was not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, as required by 5 C.F.R. § 1201.72 . W-2 AF, Tab 22. ¶17 During the August 2023 hearing, this…”
IN RE DFAS HEARING v. Dep't of Def. (MSPB 2016).
· cites it 2× “5 C.F.R. § 1201.72 (a). The appellants have not presented any evidence contesting the matters to which the declarants attested in their statements, 4 nor have they shown that the questions they would have asked the declarants might have led to the discovery of such evidence.”
Janniece Garner v. Dep't of Com. (MSPB 2023).
· cites it 2× “5 C.F.R. § 1201.72 (a). 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.