Itt Continental Baking Company
Volume 81 · 81 F.T.C. 1026
Extraction note: this decision's boundaries or caption were hard to read automatically; check the source volume.
Cite this decision
Itt Continental Baking Company, 81 F.T.C. 1026 (1972). Consumer Law Library, https://consumerlawlibrary.org/decisions/v081-0119
Report an error in this record (decision id v081-0119)
Cited by 0 later FTC decisions
Cites
Text (OCR of the scan at left; may contain errors)
1026 FEDERAL ‘TRADE: COMMISSION: DECISIONS Order. 81 F.L.C.
conferred. by Rule:3.36(¢),the administrative law judge ruled on the motion, granting it in part andidenying it:in part. Complaint counsel argue that an appeal could not have been taken from the ruling since the subpoena‘ contemplated to be issued by the ruling did not actually. exist on; August 25, but. became available only after. the, time for appeal hadelapsed., They contend,.in. other. words,: that th chad: no. way, of. knowing from. the.ruling what. the specifica-. tions, of:the. subpoena would Pe and, yhenee, whether or not ‘they would want to seek an appeal.
.. The August.25 ruling, in: our: view, loft 1 no. > uncertainty. as to what categories of documents the. administrative law judge had. ordered, produced; and the, September, 7.subpoena, simply. effectuated the.clear, import. of the., ruling. Had, the ruling, been. deficient, or.ambiguous:in, any, respect, complaint - counsel. could, have . ‘moved for. clarification, < their failure to, do so, suggests 1 that they, understood: vinta documents avere ees suby: poenaed. iby « the ruling, M motion. did not allege, that.the.s) poena, deviated. materially;: from. the proposed specifications n ruled upon. by:the judge’ s August, 25 ruling. ,.
oan. short,, it. seemed: clear, from. the, papers before us, ‘that 1 no o dispute,. in fact, existed concerning. what. documents were directed for produc-: tion under the August 25 ruling, that complaint counsel’s September 13 motion was simply an attempt to revisit. issues previously ruled.upon by. the judge and that interlocutory review, if desired by complaint counsel, should have been sought. from the August: 25 ruling. Accordingly, we denied complaint counsel's application for interlocutory review: and an appropriate order was entered.
bie ITT CONTINE ENTAL BAKING COMPANY Docket 7880. “Order, Oct. 18, 1972.
Order denying respondent’s motion for reconsideration of provisions of a 1962. order: [60 F.T.C. 1183]. ;
Orver Denyine Morton To Ruconswer By order dated August 1, 1972 [page 1021 herein], the Commission directed that this matter be assigned to a hearing examiner for the purpose of receiving evidence on the question of whether the proceeding should be reopened and the provision of the Commission’ 3 order of May 11, 1962, prohibiting certain acquisition for a period of ten,