Crow Central Petroleum Corp

Text (OCR of the scan; may contain errors)

CROW CENTRAL Petroleum CORP.

Docket 8539. Order, Oct. , 1963 Order denying request of a third party to quash a subpoena duces tecum issued at instance of rc pondent in this case.

ORDER DENYING '-\.APPEAL FRO;\( ORDER DENYING )IOTlON To Qll-\SII

SUBl'OEX c\ DUCES TECU:)!

IIa-IT)' ,Valley' , fis an individual and as President of A- &. H Transportation, Inc. , appearing pro se appeals the hearing examiner order denying his motion to quash a subpoena (luces tech17t issued fit the instance of respondent in the above-captioned matter. Under Section 3.17(f) of the Commission's Rules, an appeal to the Commission from the hearing examiner's order denying a motion to quash a subpoena "will be entertained by the Commission only upon a showing that the ruling complained of involves substantial rights and,vill materially affect the final decision and that a determination of its correctness before conclusion of the hearing will bever serve the interests of justice, Under this Rule, primc responsibility for the protection of witnesses frolll overbroad or otherwise improper subpoenas rests with the herring examiner, and the Commission \\'ill intervene at lr and concrete an interlocutory stage in the proceeding only upon a cle showing of the necessity for such intervention. Appellant has made no such showing. He alleges in yagne and conc1usional terms that the examiner's order was erroneous and that. irreparable injury will be inflicted upon him if he must. comply with the subpoena. H(nyever, no:facts are alleged, in support of these claim² t.hat would enable the Commission to determine whether appel¹:nt is entitled to iul immecliate appeal. Consequently, the appeal must be denied. In so ruling, the Commission expresses no vie" on the correctness of the hearing examiner's order or the merits of appellant's position.

It is oJ'dated That the appeal be, and it hereby is, denied.