A ft erexami ni ng t he br i efs and appe l l at e r ecor d, t hi s panel has det erm i ned * unani m ous l yt o gr antt he part i es ’ r eques tfora dec i s i on on the br i efs w i thoutor al a rg u m e n t. See F ed . R . A p p . P . 3 4 (f); 10 th C ir . R . 3 4 . 1 (G ). T h e c ase is th ere fo re or der ed s ubm i t t ed w i t houtor al ar gum ent . T hi s or derand j udgm enti s notbi ndi ng pr ece dent , exce ptundert he doctr i nes of l aw of the ca s e, r es j udi cat a, and col l at er al es t oppel . T he courtgener al l ydi s favor s t he ci t at i on of or der s and j udgm ent s ; nevert hel es s , an or derand j udgm entm aybe ci t ed undert he t erm s and condi t i ons of 10th C i r . R . 36. 3. 

## F I LED United States C ourt of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### Ju n e12,2006 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS F O R T H E T E N T H C IR C U IT

C O P A R T , IN C ., P eti ti o n er, v. AD M I NI STRATI VE R EVI EW BO AR D, UN I TED STATES DEP ARTM ENT OF L ABOR, R e sp o n d e n t, CH AR L E S L . DAL T ON, Interv en o r. N o. 05- 9577 ( N os . 04- 027 and 04- 138) ( P e t i t i o n fo rRe v i e w)

ORDE R AND J UDGM EN T * B efor e P O R F IL IO , BA LD OCK , and EBEL , C i rcui tJudg es.-2-

Pet i t i onerC opar t , I nc. , pr oces s es and s el l s s al vage ve hi cl es . I nt ervenor C h a rl e s D a lto n , a C o p a rt d ri v e r, w a s fir e d a f te r r e f u s in g to d ri v e h is tru c k . M r . D al t on fi l ed a c om pl ai ntw i t h the D epart m entof Laboras s er t i ng t hathi s truck w as uns afe and thathi s fi r i ng vi ol at ed a pr ovi s i on of the Sur fac e Tra ns por t at i on A s s i s t ance A ctof 1982 ( ST A A ) pr ohi bi t i ng t he t erm i nat i on of an e m pl oy ee for r efus i ng t o oper at e a ve hi cl e w hen he ors he “ha s a r eas onabl e appr ehens i on of s er i ous i nj ur yt o t he empl oy ee orthe publ i c bec aus e of the vehi cl e’ s uns afe condi t i on. ” 49 U . S. C . § 31105( a) ( 1) ( B ) ( i i ) . Fol l ow i ng a rul i ng byan admi ni s t r at i ve l aw j udge ( A L J ) r ei ns t at i ng M r . D al t on w i th back pa y , the U ni t ed St at es D epart m entof LaborA dm i ni s tr at i ve R evi ew B oar d ( A R B ) r ever s ed and d ism issed M r. D alt o n ’s co m p lai n t. T h is co u rt , in turn , rev erse d the A R B ’s d e c is io n , s ee D al t on v. Uni t ed Stat es D ep’ tof Labor , 5 8 F . A p p ’x 4 4 2 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 3 ), a n d th e A L J ’s o ri g in a l ru lin g w a s s u b s e q u e n tly re in s ta te d . In th e in sta n t p e tit io n fo r re v iew , C o p a rt a p p e a ls th e A R B ’s r e f u sa l to r eopen the admi ni s t r at i ve r ecor d fol l ow i ng r emand bythi s cour t . C oparthad m oved t o r eopen the r ecor d s o t hati tcoul d pr es entevi dence t o s how that M r . D al t on w oul d pr es enta thr eatt o i t s empl oy ees i f r ei ns t at ed. C opartar gues t hatt he A R B ’ s r efus al t o r eopen w as arbi tr ary , capr i ci ous , oran abus e of di s cr et i on. B eca us e w e bel i eve i tw as not , w e exe r ci s e ourj ur i s di ct i on under 49 U . S. C . § 31105( c) and denyt he r el i ef r eques t ed i n C opart ’ s pet i t i on.-3- BA CK GR OUND F o ll o w ing the A L J’s o ri g inal o rde r of reinstatem en t and b ac k p ay , C o p art app eal ed an d m ov ed the A R B for em ergencyrel i ef arguing t hat M r. D al t on w as a t hr eatt o i t s empl oy ees . T he A R B ’ s deci s i on ( 1) found the or derw as not s uppor t ed bys ubs t ant i al evi dence , ( 2) di s m i s s ed M r . D al t on’ s compl ai nt , and ( 3) di s m i s s ed C opart ’ s emer gencym ot i on as m oot . T hi s cour tr ever s ed the A R B ’s d e c is io n a n d re m a n d e d to th e A R B w h ic h re m a n d e d to th e A L J . B o th p a rt ie s th e n file d m o tio n s w ith th e A L J s e e k in g to re o p e n th e re c o rd . In su p p o rt o f

its m o tio n C o p a rt a g a in a rg u e d th a t M r. D a lto n w o u ld b e a th re a t to i t s empl oy ees i f r ei ns t at ed. C opar tatt ache d t o i t s m ot i on copi es of pet i t i ons for p ro tec tiv e o rd e rs a lleg in g th a t M r. D a lto n h a d th re a ten e d a n d a ss a u lted h is ex- w i fe a nd had thr eat ened one of C opart ’ s m anage r s . C opartal s o at t ache d copi es of al l egedl yt hr eat eni ng l ett er s M r . D al t on had s entC opart ’ s C E O . T he A L J deni ed both part i es ’ m ot i ons t o r eopen, hol di ng t hatC opart ’ s evi dence w as nots uffi ci ent l ypr obat i ve t o j us t i fyr eopeni ng. T he A L J al s o r ecomm ended that th e A R B a d o p t h is fin d in g s a n d re in s ta te M r. D a lto n w ith b a c k p a y . O n a p p e a l, th e A R B h e ld th a t th e A L J h a d n o t ab u se d h is d isc re tio n in r efus i ng t o r eopen the r ecor d beca us e “he ful l yand fa i r l ycons i der ed both the a r g u me n t s p r e s e n t e d a n d t h e e v i d e n c e th e p a r t i e s s o u g h tt o i n tr o d u c e . ” Th e ARB not ed thatunder29 C . F. R . § 18. 54( c) , “‘ [o] nce the r ecor d i s cl os ed, no addi t i onal evi dence s hal l be ac cept ed i nt o t he r ecor d exce ptupon a s how i ng t hatnew andU nder29 C . F. R . § 18. 54( a) , “[w ] hen ther e i s a hea r i ng, t he r ecor d s hal l be 1 c lo se d a t th e c o n c lu sio n o f th e h e a rin g u n les s th e a d m in istra tiv e law ju d g e d ire c ts ot herw i s e. ” -4- m a ter ial e v id e n c e h a s b e c o m e a v a ilab le w h ich w a s n o t re a d ilya v a ilab le p rio r to th e c lo s in g o f th e re c o rd .’” S u p p . A p p . a t 1 1 0 (q u o tin g 2 9 C .F .R . § 1 8 .5 4 (c )) . 1 T h e A R B h e ld (1 ) th a t th e “ [ e ]v id e n c e a b o u t [ M r.] D a lto n ’s v io len t n a tu re a n d h is a n tip a th yto w a rd C o p a rt e m p lo y e e s th a t th e e x p a rte p ro tec tiv e o rd e rs p u rp o rte d ly co n tai n w as . . . av ail ab le ea rl ier, ” a n d (2) tha t “D alt o n ’s l ett ers to [ C o p art’s C E O ] ar e notm at er i al t o w hetherD al t on s houl d be r ei ns t at ed. ” Id . a t 1 1 1 . A N A L Y S IS C opar tar gues t hatt he A R B ’ s r efus al t o r eopen w as arbi tr aryand capr i ci ous oran abus e of di s cr et i on beca us e the A R B s houl d have c ons i der ed the pr opos ed new evi dence and det erm i ned ( 1) w hetherr ei ns t at ementw oul d endange rother empl oy ees , ( 2) w hetheri tw as i m pos s i bl e forC opartand D al t on t o havi ng a pr oduct i ve and a m i cabl e w or ki ng r el at i ons hi p, and ( 3) w hetherC opartw oul d have t erm i nat ed M r . D al t on fort hr eat eni ng one of i t s m anage r s . O urr evi ew of the ARB’ s f i n a l o r d e ri s u n d e rt h e Ad mi n i s tr a t i v e P r o c e d u r e Ac t( APA) , 5 U. S . C. § 701- 706. U ndert he A PA , w e must“hol d unl aw ful and s etas i de age ncyact i on, fi nd i ng s, and con cl usi on s” fou nd t o b e, am on g o ther possi ble i nfirm i t i es,

“ a rb itrar y , ca p ric io u s, a n a b u se o f d isc re tio n , o r o th e rw ise n o t in a c c o rd a n c e w ith law .” 5 U .S .C . § 7 0 6 (2 )(A ); s ee BSP Trans , Inc. v. Uni t ed Stat es D ep’ tof Labor , 1 6 0 F .3 d 3 8 , 4 6 (1 s t C ir . 1 9 9 8 ) ( a p p lyin g § 7 0 6 (2 ) i n th e c o n te x t o f th e S T A A ).T he r egul at i ons i m pl ement i ng Sect i on 405 of the ST A A ar e found a t 2 29 C . F. R . §§ 1978. 100 t hr ough 1978. 115. U nder29 C . F. R . § 1978. 109( c) ( 3) , t he A R B m u st co n side r “c o n clus ive” all fa ctua l fi n d ing s o f th e A L J tha t are “su p p o rt ed b ysu b stan ti al ev iden ce o n the re co rd c o n side red as a w h o le. ” F u rth er, 2 9 C .F .R . § 1 9 7 8 .1 0 0 (b ) s ta te s th a t th e “ ru le s s e t fo rt h a t 2 9 C .F .R . P a rt 1 8 ,” wh i c h a r e t h e ru l e s p r o mu l g a t e d u n d e rt h e APA, a l s o a p p l y . I n tu rn , 2 9 C. F . R. § 18. 1 s t at es t hat“[t ] he R ul es of C i vi l Pr ocedur e fort he D i s tr i ctC our t s of the U ni t ed St at es s hal l be appl i ed i n anys i tuat i on notpr ovi ded fororcontr ol l ed by th e s e ru le s , o r b ya n ys ta tu te , e x e c u tiv e o rd e r o r r e g u la tio n .” -5- “W hen w e r evi ew an age ncy ’ s deci s i on underthe arbi tr ary , capr i ci ous orabus e of di s cr et i on s t andar d, ourr evi ew i s narr ow and defer ent i al ; w e mustuphol d the agenc y ’ s act i on i f i thas art i cul at ed a r at i onal bas i s forthe dec i s i on and has cons i der ed r el evantfac t or s . ” Sl i ngl uf f v. O ccupat i onalSaf

et y & Heal th R evi ew C o m m ’n , 425 F. 3d 861, 866 ( 10t h C i r . 2005) ( i nt ernal quot at i on om i t t ed) . H er e, 2 w e fi nd t he A R B ’ s det erm i nat i on thatt he evi dence i n ques t i on w as ei thernotnew ornotm at er i al t o be a r at i onal bas i s forr efus i ng t o r eopen the r ecor d. W hi l e ourr es ear ch has r evea l ed no ca s e l aw defi ni ng “new and mat er i al evi dence ” thati s “notr eadi l yavai l abl e pr i ort o the cl os i ng of the r ecor d, ” i n t he cont extof the ST A A , an ana l ogyt o ourcas e l aw i nt erpr et i ng the r el i ef f r om j udgm entgr ant ed underFed. R . C i v. P. 60( b) ( 2) for“new l ydi s cover ed evi dence w hi ch bydue di l i gence coul d nothave be en di s cover ed i n t i m e t o m ove fora new trial” is h e lp f

u l. In th a t co n tex t w e h a v e h e ld th a t: A part ys eeki ng a new t r i al on new l ydi s cover ed evi dence m us ts how “( 1) t he evi dence w as new l ydi s cover ed s i nce the tr i al ; ( 2) [the m ovi ng par t y ] w as di l i genti n di s cover i ng the new evi dence ; ( 3) t he new l ydi s cover ed evi dence coul d notbe mer el ycumul at i ve or i m peac hi ng; ( 4) t he new l ydi s cover ed evi dence [w as ] m at er i al ; and-6-

(5 ) th a t a n e w trial, w ith th e n e w lyd isc o v e re d e v id e n c e [ , w ill ] pr obabl ypr oduce a di ffe r entr es ul t . ” Jos eph v. Ter m i nix Int ’ lC o. , 17 F. 3d 1282, 1285 ( 10th C i r . 1994) ( quot i ng G raha m v. W

yeth L ab s. , 9 0 6 F .2 d 1 3 9 9 , 1 4 1 6 (1 0 th C ir. 1 9 9 0 )) (a ltera tio n s in o ri g in a l) . I n t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i v e c o n t e x t , th e F e d e r a l C i r c u i th a s h a d th e o p p o r tu n i ty, i n Wr ig h tv . USPS , 1 8 3 F . 3 d 1 3 2 8 , 1 3 3 2 ( F e d . Ci r . 1 9 9 9 ) , t o i n t e rp r e t5 C. F . R. § 1 2 0 1 .1 1 5 (d ), a r e g u latio n th a t p ro v id e s th a t a p e tit io n fo r re v iew to th e M e rit Sy s t ems Pr ot ect i on B oar d m aybe gr ant ed on the gr ounds that“new and mat er i al evi dence i s avai l abl e that , des pi t e due di l i gence , w as notavai l abl e w hen the r ecor d cl os ed. ” The Feder al C i r cui thel d thatthe evi dence i n ques t i on m us tbe “of s uffi ci entw ei ghtt o w arr antan out come di ffe r entfr om thatof the i ni t i al deci s i on” i n or dert o be cons i der ed “mat er i al . ” Wr ight , 1 8 3 F .3 d a t 1 3 3 2 . Si m i l ar l y , i n N

LR B v. A l bi on C or

p. , th i s c o u r ti n t e rp r e t e d 2 9 U. S . C. § 160( e) , w hi ch pr ovi des t hatw hen a pe t i t i on forenfor cementof a de ci s i on byt he N L R B is b e fo re th e c irc u it co u rt: [i ] f ei t herpar t ys hal l appl yt o the courtforl eave t o adduce addi t i onal evi dence and s hal l s how t o the s at i s fac t i on of the courtthats uch a d d iti o n a l ev id e n c e is m a ter ial a n d th a t th e re w e re re a so n a b le g rou n d s fo r th e fail u re to a d d u ce su ch ev iden ce in the h ea ri n g b efo re t he B oar d . . . t he courtm ayor ders uch addi t i onal evi dence t o be t aken be for e the B oar d . . . and t o be made a partof the r ecor d. 593 F. 2d 936, 941 ( 10t h C i r . 1979) . I n thatcas e, al though w e det erm i ned that r emand w as r equi r ed, w e “a t t ach[ ed] w ei ghtt o the B oar d’ s pr i ordet erm i nat i on of-7-

n o n -m aterial ity , ” a n d n o ted th at “[ w ]e w o u ld n o t r em an d to the B o ard if th ere w er e buta ‘ r emot e pos s i bi l i t y ’ t hatthe out come w oul d be affec t ed ther eby . ” Id . ( quot i ng N

LR B v. P r oces s and P ol l ut i on C ontr olC o. , 588 F. 2d 786, 790 (10 th C ir . 1 9 7 8 )). L i kew i s e, i n P r oces s and P ol l ut i on C ontr olC o. , w e h e ld th a t: [w ] e s houl d notr emand i f ther e i s buta r emot e pos s i bi l i tythatthe out come w oul d be affec t ed byadmi t t i ng t he evi dence , ori f the e v id e n c e is m e re lyc u m u lativ e . H o w e v e r, re m a n d is p ro p e r w h e re it w o u ld n o t b e a u se les s g e stu re , b u t m ig h t p ro d u c e a d iffe re n t re su lt due t o cons i der at i on of m at er i al evi dence pr evi ous l yexcl uded. 5 8 8 F . 2 d at 79 0 -91 (qu o tat ion s an d cit ati o n s o m itted). H er e, m os tof the al l eged thr eat s t o C opart ’ s m anage rw er e made befor e the i ni t i al hear i ng. T he fi r s tpet i t i on fi l ed byM r . D al t on’ s ex- w i fe w as al s o fi l ed befor e the i ni t i al hear i ng. I n deny i ng C opart ’ s m ot i on t o r eopen, the A L J not ed t h a tp r o t e c t i v e o r d e r s a r e i s s u e d i n r e s p o n s e t o e x p a r t e a l l e g a t i o n s . Th e ALJ fur t hernot ed thathe had pr evi ous l ydet erm i ned thatM r . G i l l e had “ s i gni fi cant cr edi bi l i t ypr obl ems, ” Supp. A pp. at103, and thati tw as pur e s pecul at i on t hatex par t e al l egat i ons m ade byM r . D al t on’ s ex- w i fe s how ed thatM r . D al t on had cont i nued hos t i l i t yt ow ar d C opart . I n i t s fi nal deci s i on, the A R B found thatthe pr ot ect i ve or der s and the al l egat i ons ther ei n coul d nots erve as gr ounds for re o p e n in g b e c a u se th e “ [ e ]v id e n c e a b o u t [ M r.] D a lto n ’s v io len t n a tu re a n d h isA l t hough s om e of M r . D al t on’ s al l eged a ct i ons i n r egar ds t o hi s ex- w i fe 3 and M r . G i l l e occ ur r ed af t ert he i ni t i al hear i ng, the A R B evi dent l ydet erm i ni ng t hatt hi s evi dence of w as m er el ycumul at i ve of the evi dence r egar di ng act i ons t hat occurr ed pr i ort o t he hea r i ng. -8- a n tip a th yto w a rd C o p a rt e m p lo y e e s th a t th e e x p a rte p ro tec tiv e o rd e rs p u rp o rte d ly cont ai n w as . . . avai l abl e [pr i or t o cl os i ng of the r ecor d] . ” Supp. A pp. at111. 3 C opar tar gues t hatt he A R B err ed i n det erm i ni ng thatt he evi dence r egar di ng t he pr ot ect i ve or der s w as notnew evi dence . [E]ve n i f C oparthad bee n aw ar e of D al t on’ s hi s t or yof vi ol ence , D al t on’ s conduct , bot h befor e and a ft ert he hea r i ng m us tbe vi ew ed a s a w h o le . T h o u g h D alt o n ’s vio lent co n d u ct m ayh av e b eg an b efo re t he hea r i ng, i tcont i nued and a ccumul at ed t o s uch a l evel fol l ow i ng t he hea r i ng t hatonl yt hen w as t he true ext entof hi s i ns t abi l i tyand p ro p e n sityfo r v io len c e e v id e n t. Pet ’ rR epl yB r . at1- 2. W e di s agr ee. O f the al l egat i ons cont ai ned i n the pet i t i on fo r p ro tec tiv e o rd e r filed b yth e C o p a rt m a n a g e r, th e o n lyo n e th a t cle a rly occurr ed af

t ert he i ni t i al hear i ng w as an al l egat i on thatM r . D al t on cal l ed the m anage r ’ s hom e and t ol d hi s w i fe thathe pl anned on maki ng herhus band’ s l i fe m i s er abl e and thathe then cont act ed the manageratw or k. Fur ther , al though three o f th e fo u r pe ti ti o n s fo r pro tecti v e o rde r fil ed b yM r. D alt o n ’s ex -w ife w ere filed a f ter th e in iti a l h e a rin g , ex p a rte a lleg a tio n s o f th re a ts a n d a ss a u lts a g a in st a par t yunr el at ed t o C opar tar e of s uch l i m i t ed r el evanc e thatw e ca nnots ayt hatt he A R B e rr e d in fin d in g th e fin a l th re e p e titio n s m e re ly cu m u la tiv e o f th e fir s t. A s to w h e th e r c o n sid e ra tio n o f th e a lleg e d lyth re a ten in g lette rs s e n t to C opar t ’ s C E O w oul d have pr oduced a di ffe r ence r es ul t , w e not e the A L J found-9-

t hatt heys how ed atbes t“an i ndi vi dual w ho i s frus tr at ed af t erbei ng fi r ed” a nd t hat“theycert ai nl y[di d] notr i s e t o the l evel of thr eat s of vi ol ence . ” Supp. A pp. at103. T he A R B agr eed, fi ndi ng thattheyw er e notm at er i al t o w hetherD al t on sh o u ld b e re in sta ted . W e d isa g re e w ith C o p a rt’s a ss e rtio n th a t “[ a ] re a so n a b le r eade rof . . . t he l ett er s . . . w oul d concl ude thatthe w r i t erw as hos t i l e t ow ar d t he re c ip ien t an d p e rh a p s u n sta b le” a n d w o u ld “ e x p e c t th e re c ip ien ts o f su c h lette rs to fe el disturb ed an d ev en t th rea tene d b ythe s en ti m en t exp resse d in the m . ” P et’r O peni ng B r . at12- 13. A r evi ew of the l et t er s s how s thatM r . D al t on fel tthat C opar t ’ s couns el or ches t r at ed the manager ’ s pet i t i on forpr ot ect i ve or deri n or der to a v o id c o m p lian c e w ith th e re in sta tem e n t o rd e r a n d th a t th e lette rs s p e c ifica lly sta te th a t M r. D a lto n d id n o t in ten d fo r th e m to b e th re a ten in g . F u rth e r, w h ile M r . D al t on’ s l ett er s i ncl ude copi es of bi bl i cal quot at i ons as s er t i ng t hatG od pr ot ect s t he r i ght eous and puni s hes the w i cked, the l et t er s themsel ves cont ai n no th re a ts o f

p h y sic a l v io len c e , b u t sim p lya ss e rt th a t M r. D a lto n in ten d e d to c o n tin u e to p u rsu e h is le g a l rig h ts a n d to e x p o se C o p a rt’s u nju st tre a tm e n t o f h im i n t he pr es s i f nec es s ary . W e do notr ead the l et t er s as thr eat eni ng phy s i cal v io len c e a n d c a n n o t sa yth e A R B e rre d in fin d in g th e m to n o t b e m a ter ial.-10-

T he r el i ef r eques t ed i n C opar t ’ s pet i t i on forr evi ew i s D E N I E D . I nt ervenor Ch a r l e s Da l t o n ’ s M o t i o n fo rS u r - Re p l yi s DE NI E D. E n tered fo r th e C o u rt D avi d M . E bel C i r cui tJ udge