Source: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2012/03/01/2012-4690/amendments-to-commissions-rules-of-practice-and-procedure-subparts-e-and-l
Timestamp: 2018-04-24 23:46:35
Document Index: 351983807

Matched Legal Cases: ['art 502', 'art 502', '§\u2009502', '§\u2009502', '§\u2009502', 'art 502', '§\u2009502', '§\u2009502', '§\u2009502', '§\u2009502', '§\u2009502', '§\u2009502', '§\u2009502', '§\u2009502', '§\u2009502', '§\u2009502', '§\u2009502', '§\u2009502', '§\u2009502', '§\u2009502', '§\u2009502']

Federal Register :: Amendments to Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure-Subparts E and L
Amendments to Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure-Subparts E and L
A Proposed Rule by the Federal Maritime Commission on 03/01/2012
12528-12542 (15 pages)
FMC-2012-0026
Comments in Response to ANPR
Rule 62—Private Party Complaints for Formal Adjudication
Rule 63—Commission Enforcement Action
Rule 64—Alternative Dispute Resolution
Rule 65—Decision on Default
Rule 68—Motion for Leave To Intervene
Rule 69—Motions
Rule 70—Procedure for Dispositive Motions
Rule 71—Procedures for Non-Dispositive Motions
Rule 72—Dismissals
Rule 201—Duty To Disclose; General Provisions Governing Discovery
Rule 202—Persons Before Whom Depositions May Be Taken
Rule 203—Depositions by Oral Examination
Rule 204—Depositions by Written Questions
Rule 205—Interrogatories to Parties
Rule 206—Producing Documents, Electronically Stored Information, and Tangible Things, or Entering Onto Land, for Inspection and Other Purposes
Rule 207—Requests for Admission
Rule 208—Use of Discovery Procedures Directed to Commission Staff Personnel
Rule 209—Use of Depositions at Hearings
Rule 210—Motions To Compel Initial Disclosure or Compliance With Discovery Requests; Failure To Comply With Order To Make Disclosure or Answer or Produce Documents; Sanctions; Enforcement
https://www.federalregister.gov/d/2012-4690 https://www.federalregister.gov/d/2012-4690
Submit Comments: Submit an original and five (5) copies in paper form, and if possible, send a PDF of the document by email to secretary@fmc.gov. Include in the subject line: Docket No. 11-05, and [Company/Individual Name].
The Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 46 CFR part 502, govern procedures before the Commission. 46 CFR 502.1-.991. The rules are in place to secure just, speedy, and inexpensive resolution of proceedings before the Commission. The Commission has determined to amend Part 502 of Title 46 of the Code of Federal Regulations to update and improve the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure and to reduce the burden on parties to proceedings before the Commission.
As a first step in updating and improving its procedural rules, the Commission already issued a Final Rule with respect to certain rules in Subparts A, H, I, S, and T of its Rules of Practice and Procedure. 76 FR 10258 (February 24, 2011). The Commission also issued an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) to seek comments on further amendments to improve its rules. 76 FR 19022 (April 6, 2011).
In continuance of its efforts to modernize its rules, the Commission proposes to amend Subpart E (Proceedings; Pleadings; Motions; Replies) and Subpart L (Disclosures and Discovery) of its Rules of Practice and Procedure.
In response to the ANPR, the Commission received comments from Nathan Barillo, student at Villanova University School of Law (Barillo), and the Law Firm of Rodriguez O'Donnell Gonzalez & Williams, P.C., Washington DC (ROGW). Barillo's comments focused on electronic delivery systems that the Commission should consider in connection with its filing and docket requirements. Based on experience with various systems, he advocates the use of a cloud computing system in which documents can be filed giving multiple users ability to access information from a remote location and server. Such a system would permit the Commission to receive documents electronically and allow Commission personnel and public users to access the documents at any time and from any location. He names several commercial systems as viable options for an online submission system, and also suggests that a government created system could alleviate security concerns. Barillo believes that cloud computing would streamline efficiency and reduce staff labor in dealing with paper, but nevertheless acknowledges that the Commission must also consider the needs of a small segment of the population that may not have access to a computer.
ROGW's attorneys frequently appear before the Commission in adjudications, rulemakings, and various other regulatory matters. ROGW commends the recent amendments to the Commission's rules addressing electronic filing in PDF format as well as paper. ROGW recommends adoption of a filing system similar to the Public Access to Court Electronic Records (PACER) system currently used in the federal courts. Through PACER, the federal judiciary allows and in most cases, requires, electronic filing of documents and public access to filings through a centralized system. ROGW believes that if funding permits, adoption of such a system would permit Commission personnel and private practitioners to obtain access to formal and informal proceedings and public docket information via the Internet.
With respect to the substance of certain rules, ROGW states that the applicability of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP) in Commission proceedings is not always clear and that the federal rules should be applied whenever possible. Specifically, ROGW suggests that adoption of FRCP 56 procedures for summary judgment would allow for more expeditious litigation. Similarly, ROGW recommends that the FRCP 41 procedures for voluntary and involuntary dismissals be included in the Commission's rules. ROGW explains that under the Commission's rules, after reaching a settlement in a case, the litigants cannot simply file a notice dismissing the complaint, but rather must file a motion for approval of the settlement. ROGW asserts that this requirement results in unnecessary expense of resources for the Commission and the parties and believes that the better approach is provided by the federal rule. Finally, ROGW supports adoption of the discovery rules in the FRCP, in particular the requirements for initial disclosures, identification of expert witnesses, procedures for claiming privilege and protection of trial preparation materials, limitations on depositions and interrogatories, and the 30-day response period for production of documents and interrogatories. Based on its experience, ROGW submits that mandatory disclosures would reduce the need to file motions to compel. However, ROGW believes that in considering adoption of these federal rules, due regard should be given to the differences in the nature of proceedings and practice in the federal courts and before the Commission.
The revisions to Subpart E are intended both to streamline the current rules for ease of use by the public and to provide parties to Commission proceedings with greater clarity as to the requirements pertaining to the conduct of proceedings, specifically motions, intervention and dismissals. Also as described below, this proposed amendment sets out a new procedure for the conduct of Commission initiated enforcement proceedings. Minor changes are also proposed to reorder sections and enhance clarity generally.
Rule 62, 46 CFR 502.62, governs the filing of private party complaints for formal adjudication and has been revised for clarification and modernized to request email addresses for parties to proceedings. Rules related to the filing of answers to complaints (currently found at 46 CFR 502.64) and statutes of limitations (currently found at 46 CFR 502.63) have been consolidated into Rule 62. Proposed Rule 62 explains more fully what is required in an answer and also provides for the filing of counterclaims, cross-claims, and third party complaints. Commission rules have not previously addressed these types of claims, though they have been filed and adjudicated. Proposed Rule 62 references decisions on default for failure to answer a complaint, counterclaim, cross-claim, or third-party complaint. Administrative Law Judges (ALJs) have adjudicated decisions on default in the past in various fashions, but the proposed rule better defines when an initial decision on default may be issued. The new default rule is discussed in greater detail below.
Exhibit 1 to Subpart E currently contains a complaint form and a checklist of information required when filing a complaint. The proposed rule would remove this form from the rules as the Commission plans to publish a revision of this form on its Web site along with other forms and further helpful information for complaint filers, with information oriented particularly to pro se filers.
Proposed Rule 63 provides a new procedure at the initial stages of Commission enforcement proceedings designed to more efficiently utilize Commission resources, provide for expeditious resolution of cases where a respondent defaults or otherwise chooses not to appear, and ensures due process to respondents. Under current procedure, the Commission issues an Order of Investigation and Hearing that advises respondents of the issues under investigation, designates the Commission's Bureau of Enforcement (BOE) as a party to the proceeding to prosecute the case, and assigns the matter to the Office of Administrative Law Judges to conduct the proceeding and issue an initial decision. There is no requirement in the current procedural rules that a respondent answer or otherwise respond to the Order. Typically, the presiding officer issues an initial order to the parties followed by a scheduling order setting forth dates by which certain aspects of the case must be completed and generally setting a schedule for the proceeding. It is not uncommon, however, for a respondent to fail to appear or to initially appear and then cease participating in the case. Under these procedures, there are no Commission rules to address a respondent's failure to appear or comply with procedural requirements. Instead, the presiding officer is required to undertake a number of sequential procedural steps just to put the case in a posture where an initial decision can be issued. Unfortunately, these necessary procedural steps can consume several months. For example, a motion to compel responses to discovery must be filed after the responses were due; followed by a time period for respondent to reply to the motion; followed by a time period for the ALJ to issue an order; followed by another time period for respondent's compliance; followed by BOE's motion for sanctions for failure to comply with the ALJ's order; followed by a period of time for respondent's reply; followed by issuance of the ALJ's order. Obviously, this process is time consuming and wasteful of limited resources in prosecuting a case which may well turn out to be an uncontested or a default case. The new rule for default is discussed in greater detail below.
Under the proposed procedure, an enforcement action would continue to be instituted upon the Commission's issuance of an Order of Investigation and Hearing. The Order of Investigation and Hearing would set forth specific facts alleged by BOE supporting an assertion that the respondent has violated the Shipping Act, require an answer from the respondent, and identify the consequences of failure to answer or otherwise respond to the Order. Such a procedure is employed by various other federal agencies in conducting investigative adjudications including the Federal Trade Commission, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Department of Housing and Urban Development, and the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (interim final rules). The Order of Investigation and Hearing would also identify the name and address of each respondent subject to the Order; recite the legal authority and jurisdiction for instituting the proceeding including designation of the statutory provisions and/or Commission regulations alleged to have been violated; include a clear and concise statement of facts sufficient to inform the respondent of the acts or practices alleged to constitute a violation of the law; include a statement of the civil penalties, cease and desist order, and any other appropriate penalty that may be imposed; specify the date or time period by or in which respondent must file an answer with the Commission and serve BOE; and a statement of the consequences for failure to file an answer.
The new rule contains a separate provision addressing the contents of an answer to an Order of Investigation and Hearing. The Rule would require that a respondent must file an answer with the Commission and serve the answer on BOE within 25 days after being served with the Order. The rule further provides that the answer must contain a concise statement of the facts upon which each ground of defense is based and an admission, denial, or explanation of each fact alleged in the Order, or, if the respondent does not have sufficient knowledge of the facts to prepare a response, a statement to that effect. Factual allegations in the Order not answered or addressed would be deemed to be admitted.
The Commission has long held the policy of using alternative means of dispute resolution to the fullest extent compatible with the law and the agency's mission and resources. The Commission's policy statement requires parties to consider the use of alternative dispute resolution to resolve disputes at an early stage. 46 CFR 502.401. Recently, in Fact Finding 27, Potentially Unlawful, Unfair or Deceptive Ocean Transportation Practices Related to the Movement of Household Goods or Personal Property in U.S.-Foreign Oceanborne Trades, the Fact Finding Officer recommended that the Commission adjust its ADR requirements by requiring a mandatory mediation period in formal proceedings involving household goods. The Commission subsequently adopted this recommendation.
Accordingly, the Commission has determined to modify its rules to require a preliminary dispute resolution conference in all formal proceedings. Under the new section 502.64, parties will be required to participate in a preliminary conference to determine whether the matter in dispute may be resolved through the use of mediation or other means of voluntary alternative dispute resolution. Following the conference, the parties would determine whether to proceed with alternative dispute resolution.
The Commission is proposing new procedural rules on default which should clarify the process that will occur when a party fails to participate or respond in a Commission proceeding. The proposed rule states in pertinent part that “[w]hen a party is found to be in default, the Commission or the presiding officer may issue a decision on default upon consideration of the record.”
The default rule is modeled on that of other agencies that employ a similar enforcement procedure. A defaulting respondent may petition the Commission to set aside a decision on default, which may be granted to prevent injustice upon a showing of good cause. While the federal rules do not set a time limit for the filing of such a motion, it is believed that a finite period should be set. The proposed rule requires that a motion be filed within 22 days after service of the decision on default to coincide with the current time period for the filing of exceptions to an initial decision.
Proposed Rule 68, addresses motions for leave to intervene previously found in Rule 72, 46 CFR 502.72 Petitions for leave to intervene. This section has been modernized to reflect intervention of right and permissive intervention as provided in the FRCP. The proposed rule requires that parties seek leave to intervene in proceedings by motion, rather than by petition. The proposed standard recognizes the existing standard of the Commission's rule as well as that in FRCP 24 governing intervention.
The proposed rule allows for permissive intervention by a federal or state government department or agency or the Commission's Bureau of Enforcement. The federal or state government or agency or the Commission's Bureau of Enforcement is required to show that its expertise is relevant to one or more issues involved in the proceeding and may assist in the consideration of those issues.
Proposed Rule 69 reorders the subparts from current Rule 73 into a more logical fashion and adds two new paragraphs. Paragraph (f) clarifies when responses to written motions are permitted. Paragraph (g) defines dispositive motions, because dispositive and non-dispositive motions are treated differently pursuant to proposed rules 70 and 71.
Proposed Rule 70 addresses dispositive motions. Because these motions may dispose of all or part of a proceeding, they are handled differently from non-dispositive motions. Dispositive motions must include specific information. Non-moving parties must file responses within 15 days. The moving party may file a reply within 7 days thereafter. No further reply may be filed unless requested by the presiding officer or upon a showing of extraordinary circumstances. Because these motions may be dispositive, the presiding officer may request additional briefing to ensure a full record. Previously, additional time and briefs were permitted on a case by case basis.
Proposed Rule 71 addresses non-dispositive motions. These are frequently motions regarding discovery disputes or requesting an extension of a deadline. They do not tend to be as complex and do not require as much time to address as dispositive motions. Therefore, proposed Rule 71 requires the parties to attempt to confer to try to resolve the dispute before filing the motion. If a motion is still required (e.g. to extend a date) the motion will state whether it is opposed. If the motion is opposed, the non-moving party must file a response within 7 days. A reply is only permitted upon a showing of extraordinary circumstances. This will allow non-dispositive motions to be resolved more quickly and efficiently.
Proposed Rule 72 clarifies the process for seeking voluntary and involuntary dismissals. Without such a rule, parties were not always certain how to present these dismissals. The rule is similar to FRCP 41.
The Commission proposes to revise its discovery rules found in 46 CFR Subpart L to modernize and more closely conform them to the current version of the FRCP and to encourage focused and expeditious use and completion of discovery. The Shipping Act of 1984 provides: “In an investigation or adjudicatory proceeding under this part—* * * (2) a party may use depositions, written interrogatories, and discovery procedures under regulations prescribed by the Commission that, to the extent practicable, shall conform to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (28 App. U.S.C.).” 46 U.S.C. 41303(a). In 1984, the Commission promulgated discovery rules based on the federal rules as they then existed. The Commission promulgated minor amendments to Rule 203 in 1993 and Rule 201 in 1999, but in all other respects the rules are unchanged since 1984. The FRCP on discovery, on the other hand, has been extensively revised since 1984.
As a general matter, to ensure that FMC proceedings are conducted as efficiently as possible, the Commission does not propose to adopt the various deadlines from the FRCP. To ensure parties are present in the case, proposed deadlines would run from the date of the filing of the answer, as opposed to the complaint, including the deadline for filing initial disclosures (§ 502.201(b)), completion of discovery (§ 502.201(g)), and initial duty to confer (§ 502.201(h)). The Commission is not proposing to adopt many of those rules that pertain to trials, as trial-type hearings are currently the exception in Commission proceedings. The Commission is at this time incorporating references to electronically stored documents and proposing to treat those as the FRCP does in the context of discovery.
Proposed Rule 201 governs discovery generally, defines the scope of discovery and its limits, and provides for limited initial disclosures to be made by all parties to any Commission proceeding within seven days of receipt of respondent's answer. The proposed requirement to make initial disclosures would be a new requirement in Commission proceedings. FRCP 26 requires initial disclosures in federal courts, and the procedural rules of other federal agencies, such as the Federal Trade Commission, require initial disclosure in proceedings. Proposed Rule 201 would require the parties to confer within 14 days of receipt of respondent's answer, to complete discovery within 120 days of the answer and to require supplementation of responses to discovery. Currently, discovery must be completed within 120 days of notice of the complaint filing. This limitation has proven to be unrealistic, particularly because the actual date of receipt of an answer can vary greatly. Proposed Rule 201 would adopt the federal rule on the scope of discovery as it currently exists in FRCP 26(b)(1).
Proposed Rule 201 also requires the disclosure of expert witnesses. The substance of the requirement tracks the federal rule, except with respect to the time for disclosures to be provided. The federal rule requires disclosure of experts and their reports no later than 90 days before trial. This deadline is not suitable in view of the Commission's 120 day discovery period. Therefore, parties are required to address expert disclosures and discovery as part of the “duty to confer” requirement and, if experts will be used, schedule disclosure and exchange of reports in their proposed schedule.
Proposed Rules 202 and 203 would modernize Commission rules on depositions to conform with current FRCP 28, 29, and 30. While the Commission's rules have followed the FRCP in other respects, there are currently no limitations on the number of depositions. The proposed rule would limit the number of depositions that may be taken without stipulation or leave of the presiding officer to 20.
Proposed Rules 204 and 205 pertain to interrogatories and also conform to FRCP 31 and 33. A party would be permitted to serve no more than 50 written interrogatories without stipulation or leave of the presiding officer. The Commission seeks comments specifically on the issue of whether the limitations described in this paragraph are appropriate in Commission proceedings.
Proposed Rule 206 would continue to echo FRCP 34, but would incorporate reference to production of electronically stored information and establishes that responses to requests are due within 30 days, whereas the current rule does not specify a deadline for such a response.
Proposed Rule 207 generally follows FRCP 36, although it does not allow the award of expenses if a party fails to admit a matter that is later proven true. Proposed Rule 208 remains unchanged but is reprinted in the proposed rule for ease of reference.
Proposed Rule 209 continues to follow FRCP 32, but does not reference that rule in its entirety as certain provisions, such as FRCP 32(a)(5) (Limitations on use) are not typically relevant in Commission proceedings. References to the Federal Rules of Evidence are removed as they do not generally apply to administrative proceedings.
Proposed Rule 210 is revised to more closely conform to FRCP 37(b)(2)(A), and makes the failure to make initial disclosures subject to a motion to compel and sanctions. The proposed rule also changes the response period to 7 days in accordance with the general rule applicable to responses to motions.
Although this rulemaking affects only the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, and is therefore not subject to notice-and-comment requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(A), the Commission believes that the views of the public, especially practitioners who frequently appear before it, should be considered. Therefore, through this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, the Commission again encourages the public to submit views on these proposed changes to its procedural rules.
For the reasons stated in the supplementary information, the Federal Maritime Commission proposes to amend subparts E and L of 46 CFR Part 502 as follows.
(iii) A clear and concise statement of each ground of defense and specific admission, denial, or explanation of facts alleged in the complaint, or, if respondent is without knowledge or information thereof, a statement to that effect;
(6) Effect of failure to file answer.
(i) Failure of a party to file an answer to a complaint, counterclaim, crossclaim, or third-party complaint within the time provided will be deemed to constitute a waiver of that party's right to appear and contest the allegations of the complaint, counterclaim, crossclaim, or third-party complaint to which it has not filed an answer and to authorize the presiding officer to enter an initial decision on default as provided for in 46 CFR 502.65. Well pled factual allegations in the complaint not answered or addressed will be deemed to be admitted.
(3) Oral hearing. The answer must indicate whether an oral hearing is requested and the desired place for such hearing.The presiding officer will determine whether an oral hearing is necessary.
(4) Effect of failure to file answer.
(i) Failure of a respondent to file an answer to an Order of Investigation and Hearing within the time provided will be deemed to constitute a waiver of the respondent's right to appear and contest the allegations in the Order of Investigation and Hearing and to authorize the presiding officer to enter a decision on default as provided for in 46 CFR 502.65. Well plead factual allegations in the Order of Investigation and Hearing not answered or addressed will be deemed to be admitted.
(a) Mandatory Preliminary Conference. (1) Participation. Subsequent to service of a complaint or Order of Investigation and Hearing, parties must participate in a preliminary conference with the Commission's Office of Consumer Affairs and Dispute Resolution Services (CADRS) to determine whether the matter may be resolved through the use of alternative dispute resolution pursuant to Subpart U of this Part. The preliminary conference may be conducted either in person or via telephone, video conference, or other forum.
(2) Timing. The Director of CADRS will appoint a neutral to convene the conference within thirty (30) days of the filing of an answer. The neutral, within his or her discretion, may confer with each party separately at any time.
(b) Continued Availability of Dispute Resolution Services to Resolve Procedural and other Disputes. Termination of a dispute resolution proceeding does not preclude the parties from seeking dispute resolution services at a later time to explore resolution of procedural or substantive issues.
(d) Confidentiality. All dispute resolution proceedings are subject to the confidentiality provisions set forth in § 502.405 of this part. [Rule 64.]
(a) Amendments or supplements to any pleading (complaint, Order of Investigation and Hearing, counterclaim, crossclaim, third-party complaint, and answers thereto) will be permitted or rejected, either in the discretion of the Commission or presiding officer. After a case is assigned for hearing, no amendment must be allowed which would broaden the issues, without opportunity to reply to such amended pleading and to prepare for the broadened issues. The presiding officer may direct a party to state its case more fully and in more detail by way of amendment.
(b) A response to an amended pleading must be filed and served in conformity with the requirements of subpart H of this part and § 502.69, unless the Commission or the presiding officer directs otherwise. Amendments or supplements allowed prior to hearing will be served in the same manner as the original pleading, except that the presiding officer may authorize the service of amended complaints directly by the parties rather than by the Secretary of the Commission.
(a) A motion for leave to intervene may be filed in any proceeding.
(2) Permissive intervention.
(i) In general. The presiding officer or Commission may permit anyone to intervene who shows that a common issue of law or fact exists between such person's interest and the subject matter of the proceeding; that intervention would not unduly delay or broaden the scope of the proceeding, prejudice the adjudication of the rights, or be duplicative of the positions of any existing party; and that such person's participation may reasonably be expected to assist in the development of a sound record.
(2) The Commission or presiding officer may impose reasonable limitations on an intervenor's participation in order to: (i) Restrict irrelevant or duplicative discovery, evidence, or argument; (ii) have common interests represented by a spokesperson; and (iii) retain authority to determine priorities and control the course of the proceeding.
(b) A response to a non-dispositive motion must be served and filed within 7 days after the date of service of the motion.
(c) The moving party may not file a reply to a response to a non-dispositive motion unless requested by the Commission or presiding officer, or upon a showing of extraordinary circumstances.
(a) Voluntary dismissal— (1) By the complainant. The complainant may dismiss an action without an order from the presiding officer by filing a notice of dismissal before the opposing party serves either an answer, a motion to dismiss, or a motion for summary decision; or a stipulation of dismissal signed by all parties who have appeared. Unless the notice or stipulation states otherwise, the dismissal is without prejudice.
(b) Involuntary dismissal; effect. If the complainant fails to prosecute or to comply with these rules or an order in the proceeding, a respondent may move to dismiss the action or any claim against it. Unless the dismissal order states otherwise, a dismissal under this subpart, except one for lack of jurisdiction or failure to join a party, operates as an adjudication on the merits. [Rule 72.]
3. Revise subpart L to read as follows:
(c) For parties served or joined later. A party that is first served or otherwise joined after the answer is made must make the initial disclosures within 5 days after an answer is filed by the late-joined party, unless a different time is set by stipulation or order of presiding officer. All parties must also produce to the late-joined party any initial disclosures previously made.
(d) Disclosure of expert testimony— (1) In general. A party must disclose to the other parties the identity of any witness it may use in the proceeding to present evidence as an expert.
(3) Witnesses who are not required to provide a written report. Unless otherwise stipulated or ordered by the presiding officer, if the witness is not required to provide a written report under paragraph (2) above, the disclosure must state:
(2) Limitations on frequency and extent—
(i) Specific limitations on electronically stored information. A party need not provide discovery of electronically stored information from sources that the party identifies as not reasonably accessible because of undue burden or cost. On motion to compel discovery or for a protective order, the party from whom discovery is sought must show that the information is not reasonably accessible because of undue burden or cost. If that showing is made, the presiding officer may nonetheless order discovery from such sources if the requesting party shows good cause. The presiding officer may specify conditions for the discovery.
(g) Completion of discovery. Discovery must be completed within 120 days of the service of a respondent's answer to the complaint or Order of Investigation and Hearing.
(j) Protective orders— (1) In general. A party or any person from whom discovery is sought may move for a protective order. The motion must include a certification that the movant has in good faith conferred or attempted to confer with other affected parties in an effort to resolve the dispute without Commission or presiding officer action. The Commission or presiding officer may, for good cause, issue an order to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense, including one or more of the following:
(k) Supplementing responses. A party who has made a disclosure under paragraph (b) of this section, or who has responded to an interrogatory, request for production, or request for admission, must supplement or correct its disclosure or response:
(a) Within the United States—(1) In general. Within the United States or a territory or insular possession subject to United States jurisdiction, a deposition must be taken before:
(b) In a foreign country—(1) In general. A deposition may be taken in a foreign country:
(a) When a deposition may be taken—(1) Without leave. A party may, by oral questions, depose any person, including a party, without leave of the presiding officer except as provided in § 502.203(a)(2). The deponent's attendance may be compelled by subpoena under subpart I of this part.
(b) Notice of the deposition; other formal requirements—(1) Notice in general. A party who wants to depose a person by oral questions must give reasonable written notice to every other party. The notice must state the time and place of the deposition and, if known, the deponent's name and address. If the name is unknown, the notice must provide a general description sufficient to identify the person or the particular class or group to which the person belongs.
(i) Method stated in the notice. The party who notices the deposition must state in the notice the method for recording the testimony. Unless the presiding officer orders otherwise, testimony may be recorded by audio, audiovisual, or stenographic means. The noticing party bears the recording costs. Any party may arrange to transcribe a deposition.
(5) Officer's duties—
(i) Before the deposition. Unless the parties stipulate otherwise, a deposition must be conducted before an officer appointed or designated under § 502.202. The officer must begin the deposition with an on-the-record statement that includes:
(ii) Conducting the deposition; avoiding distortion. If the deposition is recorded nonstenographically, the officer must repeat the items in § 502.203(b)(5)(i)(A)-(C) at the beginning of each unit of the recording medium. The deponent's and attorneys' appearance or demeanor must not be distorted through recording techniques.
(c) Examination and cross-examination; record of the examination; objections; written questions—
(1) Examination and cross-examination. The examination and cross-examination of a deponent proceed as they would at hearing under the provisions of § 502.154. After putting the deponent under oath or affirmation, the officer must record the testimony by the method designated under § 502.203(b)(3). The testimony must be recorded by the officer personally or by a person acting in the presence and under the direction of the officer.
(d) Duration; sanction; motion to terminate or limit—(1) Duration. Unless otherwise stipulated or ordered by the presiding officer, a deposition is limited to 1 day of 7 hours. The presiding officer must allow additional time consistent with § 502.201(e)(2) if needed to fairly examine the deponent or if the deponent, another person, or any other circumstance impedes or delays the examination.
(2) Motion to terminate or limit—
(i) Grounds. At any time during a deposition, the deponent or a party may move to terminate or limit it on the ground that it is being conducted in bad faith or in a manner that unreasonably annoys, embarrasses, or oppresses the deponent or party. The motion may be filed with the presiding officer. If the objecting deponent or party so demands, the deposition must be suspended for the time necessary to obtain an order.
(e) Review by the witness; changes—(1) Review; statement of changes. On request by the deponent or a party before the deposition is completed, the deponent must be allowed 15 days after being notified by the officer that the transcript or recording is available in which:
(f) Certification and delivery; exhibits; copies of the transcript or recording; filing—
(1) Certification and delivery. The officer must certify in writing that the witness was duly sworn and that the deposition, transcript or recording accurately records the witness's testimony. The certificate must accompany the record of the deposition. Unless the presiding officer orders otherwise, the officer must seal the deposition in an envelope or package bearing the title of the action and marked “Deposition of [witness's name]” and must promptly send it to the attorney who arranged for the transcript or recording. The attorney must store it under conditions that will protect it against loss, destruction, tampering, or deterioration.
(2) Documents and tangible things—
(i) Originals and copies. Documents and tangible things produced for inspection during a deposition must, on a party's request, be marked for identification and attached to the deposition. Any party may inspect and copy them. But if the person who produced them wants to keep the originals, the person may:
(a) When a deposition may be taken—(1) Without leave. A party may, by written questions, depose any person, including a party, without leave of the presiding officer except as provided in paragraph (a)(2) of this section. The deponent's attendance may be compelled by subpoena under subpart I of this part.
(c) Notice of completion or filing—(1) Completion. The party who noticed the deposition must notify all other parties when it is completed.
(a) In general—(1) Number. Unless otherwise stipulated or ordered by the presiding officer, a party may serve on any other party no more than 50 written interrogatories, including all discrete subparts. Leave to serve additional interrogatories may be granted to the extent consistent with § 502.201(e)(2).
(2) Scope. An interrogatory may relate to any matter that may be inquired into under § 502.201(e)-(f). An interrogatory is not objectionable merely because it asks for an opinion or contention that relates to fact or the application of law to fact, but the presiding officer may order that the interrogatory need not be answered until designated discovery is complete, or until a prehearing conference or some other time.
(b) Answers and objections—(1) Responding party. The interrogatories must be answered:
(a) In general. A party may serve on any other party a request within the scope of § 502.201(e)-(f):
(b) Procedure—(1) Contents of the request. The request:
(i) Time to respond. The party to whom the request is directed must respond in writing within 30 days after being served. A shorter or longer time may be stipulated to as provided in § 502.201(l) of this subpart or be ordered by the presiding officer.
(a) Scope and procedure—(1) Scope. A party may serve on any other party a written request to admit, for the purposes of the pending action only, the truth of any nonprivileged relevant matters relating to facts, the application of law to fact, or opinions about either, and the genuineness of any described documents.
(a) Discovery procedures described in §§ 502.202, 502.203, 502.204, 502.205, 502.206, and 502.207, directed to Commission staff personnel must be permitted and must be governed by the procedures set forth in those sections except as modified by paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section. All notices to take depositions, written interrogatories, requests for production of documents and other things, requests for admissions, and any motions in connection with the foregoing, must be served on the Secretary of the Commission.
(a) Using depositions—(1) In general. At a hearing, all or part of a deposition may be used against a party on these conditions:
(b) Objections to admissibility. Subject to Rules § 502.202(b) and § 502.209(d)(3), an objection may be made at a hearing to the admission of any deposition testimony that would be inadmissible if the witness were present and testifying.
(d) Waiver of objections—(1) To the notice. An objection to an error or irregularity in a deposition notice is waived unless promptly served in writing on the party giving the notice.
(3) To the taking of the deposition—
(i) Objection to competence, relevance, or materiality. An objection to a deponent's competence, or to the competence, relevance, or materiality of testimony, is not waived by a failure to make the objection before or during the deposition, unless the ground for it might have been corrected at that time.
[FR Doc. 2012-4690 Filed 2-29-12; 8:45 am]