Orechovesky v. Cross River Bank

U.S. Department of Labor Administrative Review Board
200 Constitution Ave. NW
Washington, DC 20210-0001
IN THE MATTER OF:
TARA ORECHOVESKY,
COMPLAINANT,
v.
CROSS RIVER BANK,
RESPONDENT.
ARB CASE NO. 2026-0071
ALJ CASE NO. 2025-CFP-00016
ALJ THEODORE W. ANNOS
DATE: September 29, 2026
Before JOHNSON, Chief Administrative Appeals Judge, and BURRELL,
Administrative Appeals Judge
DECISION AND ORDER DENYING INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL
This case arises under the employee protection provisions of the Consumer
Financial Protection Act and its implementing regulations.1 On September 6, 2026,
Complainant Tara Orechovesky filed a petition for interlocutory review (Petition)
with the Administrative Review Board (ARB or Board) asking the Board to review
an Order on Complainant’s Motion to Compel, Complainant’s Motions for Leave,
Respondent’s Motion for Protective Order, and Respondent’s Motion for Sanctions
(ALJ Order) issued by a United States Department of Labor Administrative Law
Judge (ALJ) on September 3, 2026. For the following reasons, we deny
Complainant’s Petition.
BACKGROUND
The proceedings before the ALJ have been largely dominated by an ongoing
discovery dispute regarding Complainant’s request that Respondent Cross River
Bank produce her personnel file. Respondent maintains that it has produced the file
1 12 U.S.C. § 5567; 29 C.F.R. Part 1985 (2026).

2
to her; Complainant insists that Respondent’s production is incomplete.2 This issue,
among others, prompted Complainant to file eight motions to compel and the
parties to cross-file motions for sanctions with the ALJ.3
On September 3, 2026, the ALJ issued the ALJ Order attempting to
comprehensively address these myriad issues. The ALJ stated that Complainant
had “resorted to filing a continuous, escalating stream of motions that at this point
lead the tribunal to question whether they are being filed in good faith,” despite the
ALJ’s prior warnings to Complainant that repetitive filings could warrant
sanctions.4 The ALJ also observed that Complainant’s eighth and most recent
motion to compel was filed “mere days” after the ALJ previously denied a motion
seeking identical relief, stating that it was “substantively repetitive of the one that
preceded it, suffers from the same fatal defects, and offers no new legal or factual
basis warranting reconsideration.”5 The ALJ also observed that Complainant
violated the terms of a Protective Order and had, “in the days following the [ALJ’s
prior order on Complainant’s] seventh motion to compel, [ ] inundated Respondent’s
counsel with more than thirty discovery-related emails.”6
Accordingly, the ALJ ordered the following:
(1) Complainant’s eighth motion to compel was denied;
(2) Respondent’s motion for a protective order and motion for sanctions were
granted in part;
(3) Complainant was prohibited from serving any further written discovery;
(4) All written discovery deficiencies and requests Complainant identified or
served from July 29, 2026, to the date of the ALJ Order were stricken, and
Respondent was not required to respond;
(5) Complainant was “prohibited from filing any further motions without prior
written authorization from” the ALJ, which she could obtain by sending an
email to the ALJ’s Attorney Advisor and copying Respondent’s counsel;
(6) Except for scheduling matters, Complainant could send no more than one
consolidated communication to Respondent’s counsel per week; and
2 See ALJ Order at 1-2.
3 Id.
4 Id. at 2.
5 Id. at 3.
6 Id.

3
(7) All confidential materials that Complainant submitted to the ALJ were
sealed from public access.7
The ALJ also warned that failure to comply with the ALJ’s orders “may result in
further sanctions, up to and including dismissal.”8
On September 6, 2026, Complainant filed the Petition with the ARB, seeking
immediate review of the ALJ Order. On the same day, Complainant also filed a copy
of “Complainant’s Motion for Authorization and Certification for interlocutory
Review and Complainant’s Motion for Recusal and Reassignment” (Motion for
Authorization), which was filed with and addressed to the ALJ. Complainant then
also filed: (1) a “Motion for Consideration of Additional Evidence on Appeal” (Motion
for Additional Evidence) on September 9, 2026; (2) a “Motion for Supplemental
Request for Procedural Guidance and Precedent” (Supplemental Motion) on
September 9, 2026; (3) “Complainant’s Short Brief Regarding Preauthorization,
Pending Stay, and Recusal[;] Motion to Leave for 29 C.F.R. § 18.10[;] Supplemental
Evidence and Motion to Expedite ARB Case Number: ARB-2026-0071” (Short Brief)
on September 10, 2026; and (4) a “Request for Certification of Additional
Controlling Questions of Law and Motion for Leave for Additional Exhibits”
(Request for Certification) on September 19, 2026. Complainant has also sent the
Board several emails.9 Respondent filed an “Omnibus Opposition to Complainant’s
Motions for Recusal and Reassignment, for Certification of Interlocutory Review,
and for Related Relief” on September 25, 2026.
7 Id. at 3-4.
8 Id. at 4.
9 Complainant emailed the Board five times on September 8, 2026, without copying
opposing counsel. Those emails were largely duplicative and repetitive of the issues raised
in her Petition and other filings. The Board notified Complainant on September 9, 2026,
that it would not accept those emails in this appeal, and that all filings must be made using
the Board’s Electronic Filing and Service (EFS) System, by mail, or by personal or
commercial delivery. Between September 9 and 15, 2026, Complainant sent the Board
several more emails regarding technical questions about filing via EFS. Complainant has
also copied the Board on an email directed to the ALJ’s office and on an email to the EFS
technical support team.

4
DISCUSSION
1. Petition for Interlocutory Review
The Board’s delegated authority includes the consideration and disposition of
interlocutory appeals “in exceptional circumstances, provided such review is not
prohibited by statute.”10 The Board takes the Secretary’s limitation seriously and
has emphasized repeatedly that interlocutory appeals are generally disfavored and
that there is a strong policy against piecemeal appeals.11
When a party seeks interlocutory review of an ALJ’s non-final order, the
Board has elected to look to the interlocutory review procedures used by federal
courts, including requesting the trial court certify issues involving a controlling
question of law for immediate appeal in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b).12
Complainant asked the ALJ to certify her interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1292(b) on or about September 6, 2026, but it appears that the ALJ had not
granted that request by the date of this appeal.13
If a party has failed to obtain ALJ certification, the Board may still consider
reviewing an interlocutory order that meets the “collateral order” exception.14
The collateral order exception applies if the appealed decision belongs to that “small
class [of decisions] which finally determine claims of right separable from, and
collateral to, rights asserted in the action, too important to be denied review and too
independent of the cause itself to require that appellate consideration be deferred
10 Secretary’s Order No. 01-2020 (Delegation of Authority and Assignment of
Responsibility to the Administrative Review Board), 85 Fed. Reg. 13186 (Mar. 6, 2020)).
11 Gadbury v. Park Aerospace Corp., ARB No. 2026-0024, ALJ No. 2025-SOX-00022,
slip op. at 3 (ARB Apr. 17, 2026) (citation omitted).
12 Id. at 4 (citation omitted).
13 Complainant asks the Board to “certify” certain questions for interlocutory review,
and, at times, refers to the standard for certifying an issue for review under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1292(b) in explaining why she believes the ARB should consider her appeal. Petition at 4-
6; Request for Certification at 1-3. It is the ALJ’s province to decide whether to certify
questions of law for interlocutory appeal under the standard identified in 28 U.S.C. 1292(b).
If the ALJ had certified questions for the ARB, the ARB could have then determined, in its
discretion, whether to take the appeal. Without certification, though, the ARB considers
whether the appeal meets the collateral order test, discussed herein and referenced in
Complainant’s Petition. See Petition at 6-7.
14 Gadbury, ARB No. 2026-0024, slip op. at 4.

5
until the whole case is adjudicated.”15 To fall within the “collateral order” exception,
the order appealed must: (1) conclusively determine the disputed question;
(2) resolve an important issue completely separate from the merits of the action;
and (3) be effectively unreviewable on appeal from a final judgment.16 The Board
has held many times that “we must strictly construe the collateral order exception
to avoid the serious ‘hazard that piecemeal appeals will burden the efficacious
administration of justice and unnecessarily protract litigation.’”17 The Board has
accepted interlocutory appeals, but only in rare circumstances.18
Complainant challenges several aspects of the ALJ Order and other facets of
discovery procedures in this case:19 (1) the “categorical prohibition against
Complainant filing any further motions without prior written authorization from
the Tribunal,” which Complainant contends is not justified by the circumstances of
the case, is not consistent with the OALJ Rules of Practice and Procedure, is overly
broad, and creates “procedural asymmetry” because Respondent is not subject to the
same restriction;20 (2) the ALJ’s order sealing aspects of her personnel file, “without
15 Id. (citation omitted).
16 Id. (citation omitted).
17 Johnson v. Siemens Bldg. Techs., Inc., ARB No. 2007-0010, ALJ No. 2005-SOX-
00015, slip op. at 5 (ARB Jan. 19, 2007) (quoting Corrugated Container Antitrust Litig.
Steering Comm. v. Mead Corp., 614 F.2d 958, 960 n.2 (5th Cir. 1980)); accord Mohawk
Indus., Inc. v. Carpenter, 558 U.S. 100, 106 (2009) (stressing that the collateral order
doctrine must “never be allowed to swallow the general rule that a party is entitled to a
single appeal, to be deferred until final judgment has been entered.” (internal quotation and
citation omitted)).
18 E.g., Dean v. Health Care Dist. of Palm Beach Cnty., ARB No. 2025-0055, ALJ No.
2024-AIR-00020 (ARB Sept. 4, 2025) (involving sovereign immunity); Fagan v. Dep’t of the
Navy, ARB No. 2023-0006, ALJ No. 2021-CER-00001 (ARB Feb. 28, 2024) (involving ALJ
subpoena authority for third-party witnesses); Willbanks v. Atlas Air Worldwide Holdings,
Inc., ARB No. 2014-0050, ALJ No. 2014-AIR-00010 (ARB Mar. 18, 2015) (involving
compelled arbitration of AIR21 whistleblower claim); Jordan v. Sprint Nextel Corp., ARB
No. 2006-0105, ALJ No. 2006-SOX-00041 (ARB Sept. 30, 2009) (involving attorney-client
privilege).
19 Complainant began her Petition by stating that it is “directed principally to one
narrow legal issue: the scope and legal effect of the Order’s categorical prohibition against
Complainant filing any further motions without prior written authorization from the
Tribunal.” Petition at 1. Despite purporting to limit the scope of her appeal, Complainant
goes on to raise a number of other issues and orders with which she takes exception in her
Petition and subsequent filings.
20 Id. at 1-5; see also Supplemental Motion at 1-3.

6
making the findings and balancing determination required by” the OALJ Rules of
Practice and Procedure;21 (3) the ALJ’s refusal to order Respondent to produce
additional records that Complainant believes are part of her personnel file;22
(4) Respondent scheduling her deposition for October 30, 2026, which she says is
after the deadline set by the ALJ for the completion of discovery;23 (5) the ALJ’s
“characterization” of some of her conduct in the ALJ Order;24 and (6) Respondent
using “direct after-hours communications [ ] rather than the required formal filing
and service process.”25
Setting aside the first two factors of the collateral order test, Complainant
cannot show that the limitations imposed by the ALJ in the ALJ Order or the other
discovery matters for which she seeks relief would be effectively unreviewable on
appeal from a final judgment. To be “effectively unreviewable,” the right sought to
be vindicated must “be, for all practical and legal purposes, destroyed if it were not
vindicated prior to final judgment.”26 As long as the rights at issue “can be
adequately vindicated by other means, the chance that the litigation at hand might
be speeded, or a particular injustice averted, does not provide a basis for” immediate
appellate review of an interlocutory order.27
21 Petition at 5; see also Supplemental Motion at 1, 3-4.
22 Petition at 4; see also Supplemental Motion at 5; Request for Certification at 2.
23 Request for Certification at 1-2.
24 Id. at 2.
25 Id.
26 Lattimore v. Alaska Airlines, Inc., ARB No. 2025-0089, ALJ No. 2025-AIR-00038,
slip op. at 5 (ARB Mar. 9, 2026) (citation omitted).
27 Id. (citations omitted).

7
The Board and federal tribunals have consistently denied interlocutory
review in cases involving filing restrictions,28 protective orders,29 responses to
discovery requests,30 and other discovery and procedural matters of the type raised
by Complainant in her filings with the Board.31 If Complainant does not prevail in
this action, she can appeal the ALJ’s final decision at the conclusion of the
proceedings. If we determine at the end of these proceedings that the ALJ erred in
restricting Complainant’s ability to file, in allowing documents to be marked and
treated as confidential, in not ordering Respondent to produce additional
documents, or in any other aspect of discovery, and we determine that Complainant
was unfairly prejudiced by the ALJ’s orders (or lack thereof), we can remand with
instructions that discovery reopen, that filings be accepted by the ALJ, and/or with
other instructions and relief that address Complainant’s concerns about the conduct
of discovery or motions practice. Thus, at the end of these proceedings, we are
28 E.g., Kinnell v. Kansas, 308 F. App’x 249, 249-50 (10th Cir. 2009); Molski v.
Evergreen Dynasty Corp., 500 F.3d 1047, 1054-56 (9th Cir. 2007); Lattimore, ARB No. 2025-
0089, slip op. at 2, 6; Ashcraft v. First Citizens Bank, ARB Nos. 2026-0008, -0017, ALJ No.
2025-SOX-00035, slip op. at 4-5, 11 (ARB Jan. 30, 2026).
29 E.g., In re Terrorist Attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, 152 F.4th 396, 399, 402-03 (2d Cir.
2025); Larson v. Family Dollar, ARB No. 2026-0045, ALJ No. 2025-SOX-00010, slip op. at 3,
6-8 (ARB July 17, 2026); Priddle v. United Airlines, Inc., ARB No. 2021-0064, ALJ No.
2020-AIR-00013, slip op. at 2-3, 8-10 (ARB Jan. 26, 2022). Indeed, the fact that the ALJ
entered the protective order and sealed Complainant’s personnel file reduces the exigency
of any appeal, because the risk of harm from improper public disclosure is not present. See
Priddle, ARB No. 2021-0064, slip op. at 9-10 (rejecting employer’s argument that disclosure
of records in discovery would cause irreparable harm in part because the records would be
subject to protective order which would not “allow the reports to be disseminated to the
public at large, to be used freely, or to be used for an improper purpose beyond the scope of
this litigation”). It is also not clear what harm Complainant alleges flows from the
Protective Order or seal—she does not allege that Respondent denied her access to
documents or information because of the Protective Order or that she may not use
confidential documents in this litigation.
30 E.g., Szmurlo v. ThyssenKrupp Elevator, ARB Nos. 2026-0025, -0026, ALJ No. 2025-
SOX-00034, slip op. at 2-3, 11-14 (ARB June 23, 2026).
31 E.g., Friesner v. Family Dollar, ARB Nos. 2026-0045, -0059, ALJ No. 2025-SOX-
00010, slip op. at 6 (ARB Aug. 20, 2026) (“The Board has repeatedly declined to interfere
with an ALJ’s procedural and discovery orders in interlocutory appeals because they are
readily subject to review on appeal from a final judgment.”) (citations omitted); Szmurlo,
ARB Nos. 2026-0025, -0026, slip op. at 12-13 (“With respect to these and Complainant’s
other allegations of error regarding discovery, we note that courts rarely grant interlocutory
appeal of discovery orders.”) (internal quotations and citations omitted).

8
capable of fashioning appropriate relief that adequately vindicates Complainant’s
rights and we find no exceptional circumstances warranting immediate review.32
2. Other Requests for Relief
In her various filings with the Board, Complainant also asks for other relief,
including considering “additional evidence” on appeal;33 “procedural guidance and
precedent” concerning aspects of the ALJ Order;34 expedited processing of this
appeal;35 and an order barring Complainant’s deposition, currently scheduled for
October 30, 2026, while this interlocutory appeal is pending.36 Because we deny this
interlocutory appeal, these issues are denied as moot.
32 In the Motion for Authorization, Complainant asked the ALJ to recuse himself from
these proceedings. Motion for Authorization at 4. Because the Motion for Authorization was
addressed to and filed with the ALJ, and not the ARB, the issue of recusal is not before us.
However, if Complainant intended to seek interlocutory review of the recusal request, we
deny it as well. See Marks v. Conopco, Inc., ARB No. 2025-0084, ALJ No. 2025-TAX-00017,
slip op. at 4 (ARB Nov. 20, 2025) (citation omitted).
33 Motion for Additional Evidence at 3; Request for Certification at 4. We note, though,
that at least some of the additional evidence Complainant asks the Board to consider—like
the Protective Order and the ALJ Order—are already part of the record and could be
considered by the Board on appeal.
34 Supplemental Motion at 1. Although Complainant framed the Supplemental Motion
as a request for “procedural guidance and precedent” on certain legal issues, it in effect
merely serves as an expansion on her request for interlocutory review of the ALJ Order and
other discovery and procedural issues before the ALJ and seeks the same relief that an
interlocutory review could provide.
35 Short Brief at 2-3.
36 Request for Certification at 4.

9
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, we DENY Complainant’s interlocutory appeal and
other requests for relief.
SO ORDERED.
RANDEL K. JOHNSON
Chief Administrative Appeals Judge
THOMAS H. BURRELL
Administrative Appeals Judge