Sanctions for Inadvertent Error Administrative Judge improperly granted default judgment when he failed to sufficiently consider the

agency s explanation that administrative errors had occurred and that correspondence relative to the case had not properly been distributed. Counter v. Potter, 2004 EEOPUB LEXIS 5404. In Counter, the Commission found that the imposition of default judgment was an abuse of discretion when errors had occurred in the handling discovery requests, correspondences had not been distributed to the agency s representative, and while motions were pending with two different Administrative Judges. [page 5] Sanctions should be specifically designed to serve the purpose of deterring the agency from engaging in similar conduct in the future, without being overly harsh in light of the nature of the offense.Gryder v LaHood, 2009 EEOPUB LEXIS 2150 at 22. In Gryder, default judgment was improper whenthe agency failed to submit prehearing report because the record sufficiently suggested that its Chief Counsel never received the initial request. The court stated that under the facts of this case, the administrative judge could have denied the agency the right to file a motion for summary judgment or any motion for extension.