C.F.R. » Title 5 » CHAPTER II—MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD › SUBCHAPTER A—ORGANIZATION AND PROCEDURES › PART 1201—PRACTICES AND PROCEDURES › Subpart B—Procedures for Appellate Cases

5 C.F.R. § 1201.74

Orders for discovery

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

(a) Motion for an order compelling discovery. Motions for orders compelling discovery and motions for the appearance of nonparties must be filed with the judge in accordance with § 1201.73(c)(1) and (d)(3). An administrative judge may deny a motion to compel discovery if a party fails to comply with the requirements of 5 CFR 1201.73(c)(1) and (d)(3).

(b) Content of order. Any order issued will include, where appropriate:

(1) A provision that the person to be deposed must be notified of the time and place of the deposition;

(2) Any conditions or limits concerning the conduct or scope of the proceedings or the subject matter that may be necessary to prevent undue delay or to protect a party or other individual or entity from undue expense, embarrassment, or oppression;

(3) Limits on the time for conducting depositions, answering written interrogatories, or producing documentary evidence; and

(4) Other restrictions upon the discovery process that the judge sets.

(c) Noncompliance. The judge may impose sanctions under § 1201.43 of this part for failure to comply with an order compelling discovery.

[54 FR 53504, Dec. 29, 1989, as amended at 73 FR 18151, Apr. 3, 2008; 78 FR 23458, Apr. 19, 2013]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8 cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1985–2025 · leading case: Sadler v. Army, 129 F.4th 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2025).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Sadler v. Army, 129 F.4th 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2025). “Sadler had dis- claimed any theory that he was requesting sanctions for failure to comply with an order compelling discovery under 5 C.F.R. § 1201.74 (c). The AJ found that in 2013, Col.”
Thomas D. Robinson v. Dep't of Transp., Fed. Aviation Admin., 769 F.2d 1556 (Fed. Cir. 1985). “See also 5 CFR 1201.74. Moreover, counsel fully cross-examined Hamill at the hearing.”
Donald Gryder v. Dep't of Transp. (MSPB 2023). “365 , ¶ 17 (2016); 5 C.F.R. § 1201.74 (a). In addition, we find that the appellant’s arguments of adjudicatory bias and improper ex parte communications between the administrative judge and the agency provide no basis for disturbing the initial decision.”
Nicholas Harrison v. Small Bus. Admin. (MSPB 2024). “5 C.F.R. § 1201.74 (a); see Lee v. Environmental Protection Agency, 115 M.”
Stanley Artis v. Nat'l Aeronautics & Space Admin (MSPB 2024). “5 C.F.R. § 1201.74 (c). Here, the agency filed its motion to compel while the case was in a suspended status.”
Samuel J Williams v. Dep't of Vets. Affairs (MSPB 2024). “5 C.F.R. § 1201.74 (stating that an administrative judge may deny a motion to compel discovery if a 4 party fails to comply with the requirements of 5 C.”
Sean McNab v. Dep't of the Army, 2014 MSPB 79 (MSPB 2014). “See 5 C.F.R. § 1201.74 ; see also Carter v. Department of Labor, 29 M.”
John W. Morrison v. Dep't of the Navy, 2015 MSPB 15 (MSPB 2015). “IAF, Tab 17; 5 C.F.R. § 1201.74 . We do not find that the administrative judge abused her discretion in denying the appellant’s motion to compel 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.