Moder:\ 1Larketing Service, Inc., et al. C. H. Robinson Company and Nash-Finch Co:Vipany

Text (OCR of the scan; may contain errors)

Court has ruled upon the Jantzen doctrine with a plea against subjecting it “to irreparable injury in the form of the costs of briefing and preparing and submitting proposed findings and conclusions, in a highly complex and confusing legal and factual context.” , Commission counsel urge that both alternatives be denied. They argue that the decision of the Ninth Circuit conflicts ‘with other judicial precedents and does not warrant immediate termination or deferment of all pending compliance matters relating to pre-Finality Act orders; that Jantzen does not curtail the Commission’s investigative authority; and that the requests for termination or deferment “are but two more of respondents’ continuing efforts in this 314 year-old proceeding to stall and frustrate the Commission’s inquiry.”

The order directing an investigational hearing in this matter issued on February 1, 1963 [62 F.T.C. 1486]. The record was finally closed by the hearing examiner on April 25, 1966. There remains only the submission by the parties of proposed recommendations and the subsequent examiner’s report to the Commission. The Commission considers the decision of the Ninth Circuit in Jantzen as being limited to that respondent only. and does not find in the motion of Nash-Finch Company a valid reason for either terminating or staying this proceeding. Accordingly,

It is ordered, That respondent’s motion to terminate the proceeding or, in the alternative, to defer the filing of proposed recommendations with the hearing examiner be, and it hereby is, denied.

Counsel for respondent in their second motion represent that they have insufficient time to prepare adequate proposed recommendations in this matter. As reasons they list the length of the record (approximately 3,000 pages), the number of exhibits involved (over 300), the complexity of the issues, and the fact that they are presently engaged in the preparation of proposed findings in a matter currently before another Commission hearing examiner. Counsel for the Commission have no objection to an extension, but would limit it to 80 days. We find that a reasonable extension to both sides is warranted. Accordingly,

It is further ordered, That respondent and counsel for the Commission are granted an extension to July 25, 1966, to file their proposed recommendations with the hearing examiner. Commissioner Elman not concurring and Commissioner Mac- Intyre not participating.

BEST & CO., INC.