|
OAH Docket No. 3-0900-19324-2 |
STATE OF
OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
|
ORDER ON DISCOVERY MOTION |
This matter came before Administrative Law Judge Kathleen D.
Sheehy on the Motion to Compel Discovery Responses filed by the Department of
Health. The Licensee filed no response
to the motion. The motion record closed on
February 29, 2008.
Jocelyn F. Olson, Assistant Attorney General,
William L. Libby, Esq.,
Based on all of the files and proceedings herein, and for the reasons contained in the Memorandum attached hereto, the Administrative Law Judges make the following:
The Department’s Motion to Compel Discovery is GRANTED, and the Licensee shall respond to the Department’s discovery requests by March 6, 2008.
Dated: March 3, 2008
s/Kathleen
D. Sheehy
KATHLEEN
D. SHEEHY
Administrative
Law Judge
MEMORANDUM
The Department issued the Notice and Order for Hearing in this matter on November 6, 2007.[1] On December 6, 2007, the Department served by U.S. Mail interrogatories, requests for documents, and a demand for disclosure of the identity of witnesses the Licensee intends to call at the hearing, along with a brief summary of the anticipated testimony of each witness, and any written or recorded statements made by the Licensee or by witnesses on behalf of the Licensee.[2] Responses to these requests would have been due on or about January 10, 2008.
On January 17, 2008, counsel for the Licensee requested a continuance of the hearing, which was scheduled to take place on January 23-24, 2008, so that he could recover from an illness and prepare discovery responses and trial materials.[3] The hearing was continued to March 11-12, 2008. The Licensee, however, has not responded to the discovery requests; apparently has not exchanged exhibit and witness lists with the Department, which the First Prehearing Order required to be done by February 20, 2008; and has not responded to the motion to compel discovery.
The rules of the Office of Administrative Hearings specify that any means of discovery available under the Rules of Civil Procedure for the District Court of Minnesota is allowed and authorize the filing of motions to compel. The rules further state that a party bringing a motion to compel must show the discovery is necessary, is not for delay, and the issues or amounts in controversy are significant enough to warrant the discovery. The party resisting discovery may raise any objections that are available under the Minnesota Rules of Civil Procedure, including lack of relevancy and privilege.[4]
The Department’s discovery requests are not burdensome and appear to be carefully tailored to the issues presented by this case. The hearing is scheduled to take place March 11-12, 2008. Accordingly, the Licensee must respond to the discovery requests by March 7, 2008. If the Licensee intends to default on this matter, the Licensee’s counsel should immediately give notice of that intention to the Administrative Law Judge and counsel for the Department so that the Department’s resources are not pointlessly expended on preparation for the hearing.
K.D.S.
[1] In the Matter of the Revocation of the Class A Professional Home Care Agency License and Class F Home Care Provider License Issued to Mayfair Home health Services, Inc.,, Notice and Order for Hearing (Nov. 6, 2007).
[2] Affidavit of Jocelyn F. Olson Exs. A-C (Feb. 15, 2008).
[3]
[4] Minn. R. 1400.6700, subp. 2.