Advisory opinion letter to Messrs

Response to Petition 117 F.T.C.

Re: ‘Petition to Quash and Limit Civil Investigative Demand, Motion for Continuance, and Memorandum in Support Thereof; Diamond Rug and Carpet Mills, Inc.

File No. 912-3409.
April 8, 1994
Dear Messrs. Coppedge and Citronberg:

This is to advise you of the Federal Trade Commission’s ruling on the Petition to Quash and Limit Civil Investigative Demand, Motion for Continuance, and Memorandum in Support Thereof (“Petition”) which you filed on behalf of your client, Emmett Parsons, in the above-captioned matter.

The ruling set forth herein has been made by Commissioner Deborah Owen pursuant to authority delegated under Commission Rule of Practice 2.7(d)(3). See 49 Fed. Reg. 6089 (Feb. 17, 1984). Pursuant to Rule 2.7(f), within three days after service of this ruling, Petitioner may file with the Secretary of the Commission a request that the full Commission review the ruling. The timely filing of such a request shall not stay the return date in this ruling, unless the Commission otherwise specifies. The Petition is rejected because it was not timely filed in accordance with the Commission’s Rules of Practice. Under Commission Rule of Practice 2.7 (d)(1), the Petition was due to have been filed with the Secretary of the Federal Trade Commission by 5:00 p.m. (EST) on March 14, 1994, twenty days after service of the civil investigative demand.’ Petitioner was served with the civil investigative demand for oral testimony, now challenged, on February 22, 1994. The civil investigative demand specified that Petitioner should appear for an investigational hearing on March 14, 1994. By March 1, 1994 letter to Petitioner’s then-counsel, Bruce Allen Kling, from Mr. Steven E. Weart, Assistant Director of the Dallas Regional Office ! Commission Rule 2.7(d)(1) requires the filing of any petition to limit or quash any investigational subpoena or civil investigative demand within twenty days after service of the compulsory process, or, if the return date is less than twenty days after service, prior to the return date. In this instance, March 14 was the twentieth day after service of the civil investigative demand upon Petitioner, while March 13 was the day immediately prior to the original return date. As March 13 fell on a Sunday, Commission Rule 4.3(a) provides that the period for filing the petition shall run until the end of the next following business day, March 14. Thus, as a practical matter, the original return date coincided with the twenty-day deadline for filing a petition.