Lloyd A. Fry Roofing Company

Text (OCR of the scan; may contain errors)

LLOYD A. FRY ROOFING COMPANY ET AL.

Docket 7908. Orders, April 24, 1963 and May 28, 1963 Interlocutory orders denying appeal under Rule 4.15(e). Upon consideration of the appeal filed by the respondents on April 8, 1963, from the hearing examiner’s ruling quashing a subpoena duces tecum which had previously been issued and served at the instance of the respondents upon an official of the Barrett Division of Allied Chemical Corporation; and It appearing that the subpoena would be burdensome to Allied ‘Chemical Corporation in that it requires production of over one million documents; and It further appearing that respondents have failed to indicate the relevance of the information sought,

It is ordered, That respondents’ appeal be, and it hereby is, denied. Orper Denyine Appeal Unper Rute 4.15(e) Respondents on May 20, 1968, filed an appeal from the hearing examiner’s denial of their applications for subpoenas duces tecum directed to six competitor firms. The applications were filed with the hearing examiner on May 8, 9, and 10, 1963, and were denied on the grounds that they were filed too late, were too broad, and their relevance, if any, was outweighed by the heavy burden which pro- ‘duction of the documents would impose on third parties. It appears that the subpoenas called for a large number of documents, the production of which would be a lengthy, burdensome, and expensive task. The subpoenas are returnable on or before May 27, 1963, giving the parties approximately nine working days to comply therewith. Complaint counsel rested their case-in-chief on July 18, 1962, and respondents have waited ten months to request these subpoenas. In these circumstances, the hearing examiner’s refusal to issue the subpoenas will not be disturbed. Accordingly,

It is ordered, That respondents’ appeal be, and it hereby is, denied.