Grolier, Incorporated

Text (OCR of the scan at left; may contain errors)

INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS; ETC. , 1033 1021 Order GROLIER,: INCORPORATED, ET AL.

Docket. 8879. .. Order, Nov, 8, 1972.

Respondents’ motion, to dismiss the complaint for failure to Join. indispensable . parties, denied, Orper Denvine Morion To Dismiss “This matter; is before ‘the. Commission ‘upon ‘the cortif cation. of October 26, 1972. -by the administrative law judge of ‘respondents’ _ motion to dismiss the complaint filed June 9, 1972 and complaint counsel’s ‘answer ‘in opposition thereto ‘filéd June 20, 1972. ' . - The cettification relatas:to’ respondents? sontention hat’ the order as proposed would affect the: contractual tiglits of third. parties ‘and, absent their:joinder as' indispensable partiés; the complaint should be disinissed. Only’ ‘recently: did: the Commission’ have the: occasion: to consider a similar coniterition’in thé “soft drink bottling company” eases: Docket: Nos, 8853-57-and 8859 ; Coca-Cola Company vv F.T.C., _ 842 FY Supp:670 (N.D. Gas 1972) (distnissed for lick of subject matter jurisdiction, appeal ‘periding); Pepsico Ine: v. F.T.C.,'343'F. Supp. 396 (S.D. N.Y.1972) (dismissed 'for'lack of subject'matter jurisdiction appeal pending) ; Seven-Up v. F.7.0.,:349 F. Supp. 551° (E.D. Mo. 1972) (dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction). In those cases the Commission reviewed the precedents applicable to this issue and concluded that third parties whose contractual rights will be affected by the issuance of an order to cease and desist are not necessarily indispensable parties to the proceeding from which such an order may issue. Crush International Ltd, Docket No. 8853, Order Ruling on Motions to Dismiss for Failure to Join Indispensable Parties, March 23, 1972, 3 CCH TRADE REG. REP. § 19,954. Based on the authorities set out in Crush International, the instant motion will be denied. Accordingly, It is ordered, That respondents’ motion to dismiss the. complaint for failure to join indispensable parties be, and it hereby is, denied. 494-841—73———66 1034 FEDERAL TRADE: COMMISSION ' DECISIONS “Order | 81 PEC.

Docket 8788. °* -Order, Nov. 10, 1972.

Order denying motion to dismiss as bo! ‘cartaih’ respéiidents; granting application for review of judge’s grant for issuance of subpoena; setting aside thie said grant, and quashing the subpoena.

5 1 3 1 1 2 793 907 105 60 35.362122 Orper5 1 3 1 1 3 911 926 146 43 44.268688 RuLine5 1 3 1 1 4 1070 936 48 22 96.851219 on5 1 3 1 1 5 1133 894 308 82 14.902054 ApMInterRartve5 1 3 1 1 6 1455 899 86 59 96.547516 Laws 1 3 1 1 7 1557 894 28 75 71.274658 Je5 1 3 1 1 8 1582 924 118 40 37.216228 UDGE’s5 1 3 1 1 9 1705 887 283 85 0.000000 ‘Cerrirrcarton5 1 3 1 1 10 1995 926 116 43 0.863022 Fitep4 1 3 1 2 0 836 959 1208 79 -1 5 1 3 1 2 1 836 1020 2 2 0.000000 _5 1 3 1 2 2 877 967 167 70 27.185150 Ocroper,5 1 3 1 2 3 1050 972 55 45 96.528107 10,5 1 3 1 2 4 1126 974 96 52 52.879356 19725 1 3 1 2 5 1230 973 82 36 81.413589 ANDS 1 3 1 2 6 1318 968 221 52 35.387917 ‘ComPiainr5 1 3 1 2 7 1555 959 200 62 24.897194 ‘Counset’s5 1 3 1 2 8 1772 966 245 72 50.849644 APPLICATIONS 1 3 1 2 9 2041 985 3 2 13.415176 :4 1 3 1 3 0 1042 1016 762 73 -1 5 1 3 1 3 1 1042 1028 28 7 1.228317 i5 1 3 1 3 2 1096 1021 64 62 96.563560 FOR5 1 3 1 3 3 1170 1017 166 67 53.059288 ‘Review’5 1 3 1 3 4 1347 1028 32 49 22.037849 ¥5 1 3 1 3 5 1378 1016 93 59 21.528824 TEED’5 1 3 1 3 6 1467 1022 78 59 79.981224 Oct5 1 3 1 3 7 1570 1021 78 68 52.497200 BER’5 1 3 1 3 8 1655 1018 34 60 93.638260 3,5 1 3 1 3 9 1706 1019 98 56 46.312046 1972;2 1 4 0 0 0 991 1059 4 12 -1 3 1 4 1 0 0 991 1059 4 12 -1 4 1 4 1 1 0 991 1059 4 12 -1 5 1 4 1 1 1 991 1059 4 19 62.504448 t2 1 5 0 0 0 775 1063 1366 600 -1 3 1 5 1 0 0 775 1063 1366 587 -1 4 1 5 1 1 0 823 1063 1281 88 -1 5 1 5 1 1 1 823 1098 85 52 96.713326 This5 1 5 1 1 2 919 1070 137 81 77.652740 matters 1 5 1 1 3 1060 1102 34 33 89.885048 is5 1 5 1 1 4 1102 1081 119 58 96.570137 before5 1 5 1 1 5 1232 1083 70 55 95.411995 the.5 1 5 1 1 6 1307 1082 229 59 48.411087 Commission.5 1 5 1 1 7 1550 1113 47 27 95.706573 on,5 1 5 1 1 8 1591 1081 86 58 47.915497 two5 1 5 1 1 9 1684 1084 163 61 45.609417 separates 1 5 1 1 10 1862 1063 11 70 53.368267 15 1 5 1 1 11 1861 1073 171 72 84.166306 requests:5 1 5 1 1 12 2037 1084 67 62 84.853981 (a)4 1 5 1 2 0 780 1152 1331 44 -1 5 1 5 1 2 1 780 1153 58 32 86.438873 thes 1 5 1 2 2 848 1152 283 39 86.438873 administrative5 1 5 1 2 3 1144 1153 71 37 92.551308 laws 1 5 1 2 4 1231 1153 108 43 36.810905 judge’s.5 1 5 1 2 5 1340 1153 373 38 58.052559 certification.5 1 5 1 2 6 1626 1145 99 59 58.052559 filed.5 1 5 1 2 7 1726 1153 155 39 58.001060 October,5 1 5 1 2 8 1889 1153 162 42 40.747547 10,1972,5 1 5 1 2 9 2071 1154 40 33 97.009666 of4 1 5 1 3 0 776 1198 1334 48 -1 5 1 5 1 3 1 776 1204 67 35 96.353729 thes 1 5 1 3 2 853 1203 136 37 91.289062 motion.5 1 5 1 3 3 998 1204 42 39 96.869339 of5 1 5 1 3 4 1049 1205 241 41 72.697800 respondents.5 1 5 1 3 5 1297 1204 96 38 72.697800 Jacks 1 5 1 3 6 1402 1198 123 47 92.918732 Stires,5 1 5 1 3 7 1540 1205 138 40 41.418793 Inc.,:a5 1 5 1 3 8 1677 1203 234 42 96.769791 corporation,5 1 5 1 3 9 1930 1204 77 39 96.761192 and,5 1 5 1 3 10 2015 1204 95 47 77.270142 John4 1 5 1 4 0 781 1253 1327 44 -1 5 1 5 1 4 1 781 1254 37 34 87.805222 C.5 1 5 1 4 2 835 1254 110 38 92.678307 Stires5 1 5 1 4 3 959 1247 58 50 90.831146 IT,5 1 5 1 4 4 1025 1248 318 49 84.197845 individually-ands 1 5 1 4 5 1359 1265 37 34 94.643311 as5 1 5 1 4 6 1411 1265 57 26 89.777985 an5 1 5 1 4 7 1469 1254 121 39 89.777985 officers 1 5 1 4 8 1594 1253 44 40 89.837097 of5 1 5 1 4 9 1648 1254 99 39 91.097282 Jacks 1 5 1 4 10 1748 1253 131 47 82.622047 Stires,5 1 5 1 4 11 1886 1255 88 41 52.903576 Ine:,5 1 5 1 4 12 1988 1248 120 45 77.938187 to,dis-4 1 5 1 5 0 776 1290 1333 61 -1 5 1 5 1 5 1 776 1305 84 34 96.145485 miss5 1 5 1 5 2 871 1305 63 38 92.960548 thes 1 5 1 5 3 939 1304 191 43 92.960548 complaints 1 5 1 5 4 1140 1316 37 25 93.237938 as5 1 5 1 5 5 1188 1305 164 42 47.210052 to.them;:5 1 5 1 5 6 1360 1290 70 61 88.527252 and.5 1 5 1 5 7 1446 1305 63 42 89.187607 (2),5 1 5 1 5 8 1518 1304 366 48 33.540840 complaint.counsel’s5 1 5 1 5 9 1896 1305 213 42 96.422157 application4 1 5 1 6 0 775 1352 1335 45 -1 5 1 5 1 6 1 775 1355 63 37 90.234474 for5 1 5 1 6 2 849 1355 145 41 0.000000 review,5 1 5 1 6 3 994 1344 107 57 0.000000 .filed-5 1 5 1 6 4 1117 1355 139 34 0.000000 October5 1 5 1 6 5 1277 1355 203 42 38.274773 3,.1972,5 1 5 1 6 6 1445 1344 34 57 96.766632 of5 1 5 1 6 7 1497 1355 61 37 96.301147 thes 1 5 1 6 8 1570 1348 166 44 94.042450 orders 1 5 1 6 9 1697 1344 39 57 94.042450 of5 1 5 1 6 10 1751 1355 63 39 96.222115 thes 1 5 1 6 11 1834 1355 276 37 96.339424 administrative4 1 5 1 7 0 776 1400 1332 66 -1 5 1 5 1 7 1 776 1407 78 36 58.859100 Jaw,5 1 5 1 7 2 853 1400 113 49 58.859100 judges 1 5 1 7 3 980 1406 39 36 97.000473 of5 1 5 1 7 4 1033 1406 202 46 97.010132 September5 1 5 1 7 5 1246 1408 52 39 96.933899 26,5 1 5 1 7 6 1303 1406 103 41 91.539131 1972,5 1 5 1 7 7 1414 1402 160 64 67.605804 granting5 1 5 1 7 8 1588 1416 9 28 67.605804 |5 1 5 1 7 9 1594 1407 63 32 93.228271 thes 1 5 1 7 10 1669 1406 265 43 85.080208 application.of5 1 5 1 7 11 1942 1407 166 41 90.896339 respond-4 1 5 1 8 0 778 1456 1363 45 -1 5 1 5 1 8 1 778 1460 60 34 70.926834 ent,5 1 5 1 8 2 883 1456 322 44 17.676277 Jewel:-Companies,5 1 5 1 8 3 1227 1457 98 41 92.498138 Inc.,5 1 5 1 8 4 1333 1457 67 37 20.782051 for.5 1 5 1 8 5 1409 1457 63 38 20.782051 thes 1 5 1 8 6 1483 1456 172 38 68.380692 issuance:5 1 5 1 8 7 1670 1457 50 37 90.487808 of5 1 5 1 8 8 1732 1467 20 24 90.487808 a5 1 5 1 8 9 1769 1457 340 44 46.597691 subpoena:-for:thes 1 5 1 8 10 2137 1491 4 3 75.677841 .4 1 5 1 9 0 778 1491 1329 76 -1 5 1 5 1 9 1 778 1503 194 64 56.734940 productions 1 5 1 9 2 1004 1507 40 33 96.821571 of5 1 5 1 9 3 1061 1506 134 38 96.686058 certain5 1 5 1 9 4 1216 1507 228 37 95.604637 Commissions 1 5 1 9 5 1461 1507 161 38 22.830566 ‘records,5 1 5 1 9 6 1613 1502 10 53 22.830566 ;5 1 5 1 9 7 1617 1491 256 72 1.466179 Respondent.5 1 5 1 9 8 1878 1504 115 51 92.497192 Jewel:5 1 5 1 9 9 2008 1491 99 54 92.903137 Com-4 1 5 1 10 0 778 1557 1328 73 -1 5 1 5 1 10 1 778 1557 131 42 92.794762 panies,5 1 5 1 10 2 921 1559 87 43 91.226509 Inc.,5 1 5 1 10 3 1015 1569 53 21 96.247223 on5 1 5 1 10 4 1076 1558 149 37 96.850433 October5 1 5 1 10 5 1237 1560 57 39 84.280617 18,5 1 5 1 10 6 1303 1558 101 41 61.692635 19/72,5 1 5 1 10 7 1405 1558 289 38 43.456627 ‘filed:an-answers 1 5 1 10 8 1708 1557 45 39 84.871696 in5 1 5 1 10 9 1729 1625 2 3 41.518974 n5 1 5 1 10 10 1765 1557 190 73 82.629974 opposition5 1 5 1 10 11 1969 1561 35 32 91.877480 to5 1 5 1 10 12 2018 1569 88 24 90.877464 com-4 1 5 1 11 0 775 1584 1110 79 -1 5 1 5 1 11 1 775 1608 290 42 21.606491 plaint.counsel’s5 1 5 1 11 2 1075 1584 220 79 72.134850 applications 1 5 1 11 3 1293 1608 223 36 0.000000 forreviews.5 1 5 1 11 4 1555 1619 51 24 30.429214 265 1 5 1 11 5 1641 1604 27 51 41.195332 05 1 5 1 11 6 1819 1618 66 27 0.000000 ea).2 1 6 0 0 0 1512 1021 592 79 -1 3 1 6 1 0 0 1512 1021 592 79 -1 4 1 6 1 1 0 1512 1021 592 79 -1 5 1 6 1 1 1 1512 1071 109 29 95.000000 5 1 6 1 1 2 2041 1021 63 75 95.000000 2 1 7 0 0 0 1438 1685 15 21 -1 3 1 7 1 0 0 1438 1685 15 21 -1 4 1 7 1 1 0 1438 1685 15 21 -1 5 1 7 1 1 1 1438 1685 15 21 55.611115 I2 1 8 0 0 0 1217 1749 459 33 -1 3 1 8 1 0 0 1217 1749 459 33 -1 4 1 8 1 1 0 1217 1749 459 33 -1 5 1 8 1 1 1 1217 1751 73 31 96.795868 Thes 1 8 1 1 2 1312 1750 136 32 96.140327 Motions 1 8 1 1 3 1470 1753 36 29 96.678757 to5 1 8 1 1 4 1528 1749 148 33 96.204941 Dismiss2 1 9 0 0 0 775 1833 1333 399 -1 3 1 9 1 0 0 775 1833 1333 399 -1 4 1 9 1 1 0 821 1833 1285 43 -1 5 1 9 1 1 1 821 1833 56 34 96.138893 On5 1 9 1 1 2 895 1833 200 42 96.138893 September5 1 9 1 1 3 1113 1836 48 39 96.826340 12,5 1 9 1 1 4 1180 1833 92 42 96.295982 1972,5 1 9 1 1 5 1289 1834 224 41 96.295982 respondents5 1 9 1 1 6 1529 1834 90 34 93.185036 Jacks 1 9 1 1 7 1636 1833 119 43 92.691681 Stires,5 1 9 1 1 8 1772 1835 84 40 90.468842 Inc.,5 1 9 1 1 9 1872 1835 69 38 96.475998 ands 1 9 1 1 10 1957 1835 94 33 93.214409 Johns 1 9 1 1 11 2067 1833 39 34 91.397812 C.4 1 9 1 2 0 778 1884 1330 43 -1 5 1 9 1 2 1 778 1884 109 34 93.008186 Stires5 1 9 1 2 2 903 1885 41 33 76.129105 IT5 1 9 1 2 3 960 1885 81 33 96.235680 filed5 1 9 1 2 4 1058 1884 84 34 96.235680 with5 1 9 1 2 5 1158 1884 59 33 96.781654 thes 1 9 1 2 6 1233 1884 278 34 96.320946 administrative5 1 9 1 2 7 1532 1884 61 33 96.878029 laws 1 9 1 2 8 1610 1884 105 43 96.907959 judges 1 9 1 2 9 1733 1896 20 21 95.850327 a5 1 9 1 2 10 1770 1884 131 33 96.792465 motions 1 9 1 2 11 1917 1888 37 29 96.426521 to5 1 9 1 2 12 1972 1885 136 33 96.425629 dismiss4 1 9 1 3 0 776 1935 1332 43 -1 5 1 9 1 3 1 776 1935 58 33 96.526970 thes 1 9 1 3 2 845 1935 195 43 96.351952 complaints 1 9 1 3 3 1058 1946 37 22 96.977180 as5 1 9 1 3 4 1114 1939 34 29 95.327377 to5 1 9 1 3 5 1167 1935 94 33 96.864990 them5 1 9 1 3 6 1280 1947 44 21 96.506058 on5 1 9 1 3 7 1342 1935 59 33 95.888107 thes 1 9 1 3 8 1417 1935 156 43 95.888107 grounds5 1 9 1 3 9 1591 1935 77 33 96.086166 that5 1 9 1 3 10 1687 1936 88 33 93.298027 Jacks 1 9 1 3 11 1795 1935 119 41 92.305534 Stires,5 1 9 1 3 12 1935 1937 81 40 86.561127 Inc.,5 1 9 1 3 13 2036 1947 72 21 96.883575 was4 1 9 1 4 0 775 1985 1332 44 -1 5 1 9 1 4 1 775 1986 139 43 96.136688 merged5 1 9 1 4 2 934 1985 75 34 96.446083 into5 1 9 1 4 3 1031 1986 144 33 96.723404 another5 1 9 1 4 4 1195 1986 232 43 96.304810 corporation,5 1 9 1 4 5 1448 1986 133 33 96.319626 Parker5 1 9 1 4 6 1603 1987 133 41 93.289398 Farms,5 1 9 1 4 7 1758 1987 85 40 92.935379 Inc.,5 1 9 1 4 8 1864 1986 36 32 96.545731 in5 1 9 1 4 9 1924 1989 90 38 96.559029 1969,5 1 9 1 4 10 2038 1986 69 33 96.572952 anda 1 9 1 5 0 777 2036 1331 43 -1 5 1 9 1 5 1 777 2037 77 31 96.655235 that5 1 9 1 5 2 871 2036 190 33 96.645485 thereafter5 1 9 1 5 3 1077 2037 90 34 93.293793 Jacks 1 9 1 5 4 1184 2036 120 43 92.076378 Stires,5 1 9 1 5 5 1322 2037 85 41 92.239052 Inc.,5 1 9 1 5 6 1422 2037 119 33 96.627968 ceased5 1 9 1 5 7 1557 2040 37 29 96.610229 to5 1 9 1 5 8 1609 2036 106 42 0.000000 exist;5 1 9 1 5 9 1729 2040 10 16 0.000000 ?5 1 9 1 5 10 1756 2037 148 42 96.117149 further,5 1 9 1 5 11 1919 2037 79 33 96.218758 that5 1 9 1 5 12 2012 2037 96 34 91.978691 John4 1 9 1 6 0 776 2087 1330 44 -1 5 1 9 1 6 1 776 2088 38 34 91.813118 C.5 1 9 1 6 2 833 2087 109 35 91.813118 Stires5 1 9 1 6 3 959 2088 41 32 90.951965 II5 1 9 1 6 4 1015 2088 64 32 96.900429 has5 1 9 1 6 5 1095 2087 138 42 96.505699 retired,5 1 9 1 6 6 1250 2088 70 32 96.254234 ands 1 9 1 6 7 1336 2088 62 33 96.254234 did5 1 9 1 6 8 1415 2088 103 32 96.940010 retire5 1 9 1 6 9 1535 2087 97 44 96.725006 prior5 1 9 1 6 10 1648 2091 37 34 96.798500 to5 1 9 1 6 11 1703 2088 57 32 96.788399 thes 1 9 1 6 12 1777 2099 143 32 96.575264 merger,5 1 9 1 6 13 1939 2088 91 32 96.517082 from5 1 9 1 6 14 2046 2088 60 32 96.881317 thea 1 9 1 7 0 776 2138 1329 43 -1 5 1 9 1 7 1 776 2138 89 33 96.749367 fruits 1 9 1 7 2 885 2139 68 32 96.516998 ands 1 9 1 7 3 973 2138 177 42 96.732819 vegetables 1 9 1 7 4 1168 2139 190 42 96.527161 brokerages 1 9 1 7 5 1377 2138 152 33 96.699165 business5 1 9 1 7 6 1551 2139 68 32 96.699165 ands 1 9 1 7 7 1640 2138 63 33 96.900658 has5 1 9 1 7 8 1723 2149 43 21 96.551079 no5 1 9 1 7 9 1788 2138 187 33 96.701599 intentions5 1 9 1 7 10 1996 2139 38 32 93.271591 of5 1 9 1 7 11 2054 2150 51 20 92.775215 re-4 1 9 1 8 0 775 2184 680 48 -1 5 1 9 1 8 1 775 2188 157 44 96.843361 entering5 1 9 1 8 2 941 2189 84 33 96.843361 such5 1 9 1 8 3 1034 2184 153 38 96.582588 business5 1 9 1 8 4 1197 2189 37 38 96.902985 in5 1 9 1 8 5 1243 2190 60 32 96.908249 thes 1 9 1 8 6 1312 2189 143 33 0.000000 future.2 1 10 0 0 0 774 2273 1332 469 -1 3 1 10 1 0 0 776 2273 1329 60 -1 4 1 10 1 1 0 810 2273 1295 26 -1 5 1 10 1 1 1 810 2274 9 13 88.775467 15 1 10 1 1 2 828 2273 185 26 93.840065 Additionally,5 1 10 1 1 3 1036 2274 141 25 96.500450 complaints 1 10 1 1 4 1199 2274 111 25 96.157951 counsel,5 1 10 1 1 5 1333 2279 34 16 95.900063 on5 1 10 1 1 6 1390 2273 108 22 95.900063 October5 1 10 1 1 7 1520 2273 42 26 96.844261 25,5 1 10 1 1 8 1585 2273 74 26 96.478798 1972,5 1 10 1 1 9 1683 2274 59 21 95.972099 filed5 1 10 1 1 10 1764 2279 16 16 95.972099 a5 1 10 1 1 11 1804 2274 188 25 92.888458 supplemental5 1 10 1 1 12 2014 2279 91 16 92.824440 memo-4 1 10 1 2 0 776 2307 891 26 -1 5 1 10 1 2 1 776 2307 107 22 91.270561 randum5 1 10 1 2 2 895 2307 27 22 96.600128 of5 1 10 1 2 3 932 2307 49 22 96.600128 laws 1 10 1 2 4 993 2307 26 21 95.561684 in5 1 10 1 2 5 1030 2307 151 22 95.561684 connections 1 10 1 2 6 1192 2307 63 22 96.899437 with5 1 10 1 2 7 1267 2308 67 21 95.476639 theirs 1 10 1 2 8 1345 2308 158 25 95.476639 applications 1 10 1 2 9 1513 2308 44 21 96.648964 for5 1 10 1 2 10 1567 2307 100 22 96.084839 review.3 1 10 2 0 0 775 2341 1330 162 -1 4 1 10 2 1 0 809 2341 1296 27 -1 5 1 10 2 1 1 809 2341 50 21 85.212479 zins 1 10 2 1 2 874 2341 40 21 96.750351 his5 1 10 2 1 3 929 2341 116 21 93.600044 affidavits 1 10 2 1 4 1059 2341 68 22 92.521957 Johns 1 10 2 1 5 1143 2341 26 22 90.755112 C.5 1 10 2 1 6 1186 2341 82 22 91.803902 Stires5 1 10 2 1 7 1282 2341 28 21 95.548943 II5 1 10 2 1 8 1324 2341 83 22 96.765289 states5 1 10 2 1 9 1423 2341 26 21 95.988754 in5 1 10 2 1 10 1464 2341 60 26 96.182571 parts 1 10 2 1 11 1540 2341 60 22 95.778481 that5 1 10 2 1 12 1614 2346 33 16 95.778481 on5 1 10 2 1 13 1663 2341 148 26 96.437805 September5 1 10 2 1 14 1826 2342 39 25 96.708038 22,5 1 10 2 1 15 1882 2341 74 27 96.229538 1969,5 1 10 2 1 16 1972 2347 32 16 93.297600 an5 1 10 2 1 17 2019 2346 86 21 91.682426 agree-4 1 10 2 2 0 776 2375 1326 26 -1 5 1 10 2 2 1 776 2375 70 20 96.821289 ments 1 10 2 2 2 867 2375 27 21 96.974655 of5 1 10 2 2 3 914 2381 98 20 96.140343 mergers 1 10 2 2 4 1033 2381 53 15 96.284576 was5 1 10 2 2 5 1108 2376 59 21 96.507957 filed5 1 10 2 2 6 1187 2376 65 22 96.468811 with5 1 10 2 2 7 1273 2376 45 22 96.815239 thes 1 10 2 2 8 1339 2376 170 25 96.414093 Corporations 1 10 2 2 9 1531 2375 170 23 96.653877 Commissions 1 10 2 2 10 1723 2376 28 22 96.465309 of5 1 10 2 2 11 1771 2375 46 22 96.465309 thes 1 10 2 2 12 1840 2376 73 22 96.418457 States 1 10 2 2 13 1935 2376 30 20 96.680222 of5 1 10 2 2 14 1984 2376 118 24 95.989044 Arizona,4 1 10 2 3 0 775 2406 1330 30 -1 5 1 10 2 3 1 775 2406 129 28 96.617874 pursuant5 1 10 2 3 2 920 2409 27 21 96.059776 to5 1 10 2 3 3 965 2409 84 22 96.546066 which5 1 10 2 3 4 1068 2409 65 22 93.304817 Jacks 1 10 2 3 5 1151 2409 90 27 92.606773 Stires,5 1 10 2 3 6 1260 2410 62 25 88.089218 Inc.,5 1 10 2 3 7 1340 2415 54 16 96.767616 was5 1 10 2 3 8 1412 2410 102 25 96.075027 merged5 1 10 2 3 9 1532 2409 55 22 96.687897 into5 1 10 2 3 10 1606 2410 98 21 96.476898 Parker5 1 10 2 3 11 1721 2410 99 24 89.938843 Farms,5 1 10 2 3 12 1840 2410 69 24 89.938843 Inc.;5 1 10 2 3 13 1928 2409 60 22 96.107620 that5 1 10 2 3 14 2006 2415 15 16 96.565094 a5 1 10 2 3 15 2040 2415 65 20 96.265144 copy4 1 10 2 4 0 775 2442 1328 28 -1 5 1 10 2 4 1 775 2442 28 21 96.158989 of5 1 10 2 4 2 820 2442 44 22 95.976532 thes 1 10 2 4 3 881 2443 147 25 96.107803 agreements 1 10 2 4 4 1045 2448 54 16 96.519035 was5 1 10 2 4 5 1117 2443 58 22 96.044754 filed5 1 10 2 4 6 1192 2444 65 21 96.523766 with5 1 10 2 4 7 1276 2444 44 22 96.664398 thes 1 10 2 4 8 1339 2444 134 26 96.210129 Secretary5 1 10 2 4 9 1492 2444 28 21 96.294785 of5 1 10 2 4 10 1537 2443 45 23 96.464790 thes 1 10 2 4 11 1601 2443 74 23 96.808586 States 1 10 2 4 12 1694 2445 27 20 95.575562 of5 1 10 2 4 13 1739 2443 144 23 96.263390 California5 1 10 2 4 14 1900 2449 34 15 96.936958 on5 1 10 2 4 15 1954 2443 107 22 96.453651 October5 1 10 2 4 16 2080 2444 23 25 96.455856 3,4 1 10 2 5 0 775 2476 850 27 -1 5 1 10 2 5 1 775 2476 72 26 96.554161 1969,5 1 10 2 5 2 858 2478 50 20 96.546295 ands 1 10 2 5 3 919 2483 29 15 94.732704 as5 1 10 2 5 4 958 2477 28 20 94.732704 of5 1 10 2 5 5 996 2477 72 21 96.403229 these5 1 10 2 5 6 1078 2478 74 21 96.489967 dates5 1 10 2 5 7 1163 2478 64 21 93.299713 Jacks 1 10 2 5 8 1238 2478 90 25 91.739868 Stires,5 1 10 2 5 9 1339 2478 62 25 91.802589 Inc.,5 1 10 2 5 10 1413 2479 89 21 96.294777 ceased5 1 10 2 5 11 1513 2479 27 21 96.396599 to5 1 10 2 5 12 1551 2478 74 22 96.662933 exist.3 1 10 3 0 0 774 2510 1332 232 -1 4 1 10 3 1 0 808 2510 1298 27 -1 5 1 10 3 1 1 808 2510 51 20 79.751068 3In5 1 10 3 1 2 876 2511 41 20 95.801361 his5 1 10 3 1 3 934 2510 116 22 96.326973 affidavits 1 10 3 1 4 1066 2511 70 21 92.696320 Johns 1 10 3 1 5 1148 2511 30 22 92.566231 C.5 1 10 3 1 6 1198 2511 82 22 90.964844 Stires5 1 10 3 1 7 1296 2512 28 21 95.758041 II5 1 10 3 1 8 1339 2512 85 21 96.624489 states5 1 10 3 1 9 1440 2512 26 21 96.140915 in5 1 10 3 1 10 1483 2513 61 24 96.167549 parts 1 10 3 1 11 1559 2512 60 21 95.565269 that5 1 10 3 1 12 1635 2512 32 21 95.565269 he5 1 10 3 1 13 1683 2512 87 21 96.561485 ceased5 1 10 3 1 14 1788 2512 126 25 96.551895 engaging5 1 10 3 1 15 1930 2512 27 20 96.559402 in5 1 10 3 1 16 1973 2512 65 21 96.318153 fruits 1 10 3 1 17 2054 2512 52 21 96.318153 anda 1 10 3 2 0 775 2544 1328 28 -1 5 1 10 3 2 1 775 2544 130 26 95.670685 vegetables 1 10 3 2 2 922 2544 139 27 96.495689 brokerages 1 10 3 2 3 1079 2545 177 22 96.100548 transactions5 1 10 3 2 4 1274 2546 100 21 96.601364 several5 1 10 3 2 5 1391 2546 105 22 96.172279 months5 1 10 3 2 6 1513 2546 71 26 96.665787 prior5 1 10 3 2 7 1603 2547 26 20 96.534256 to5 1 10 3 2 8 1648 2546 45 22 96.911301 thes 1 10 3 2 9 1711 2545 154 22 95.908096 dissolution5 1 10 3 2 10 1884 2545 27 21 96.513145 of5 1 10 3 2 11 1930 2545 64 21 93.298126 Jacks 1 10 3 2 12 2012 2545 91 26 91.535927 Stires,4 1 10 3 3 0 776 2578 1326 28 -1 5 1 10 3 3 1 776 2578 60 26 52.962296 Inc.,5 1 10 3 3 2 856 2579 51 20 95.195534 ands 1 10 3 3 3 924 2578 48 22 96.093033 has5 1 10 3 3 4 990 2580 47 20 96.409355 not5 1 10 3 3 5 1054 2579 61 22 96.168884 been5 1 10 3 3 6 1135 2580 109 25 96.202858 directly5 1 10 3 3 7 1262 2585 30 16 96.202858 or5 1 10 3 3 8 1310 2579 138 26 96.127708 indirectly5 1 10 3 3 9 1466 2581 115 25 96.229202 engaged5 1 10 3 3 10 1600 2580 27 21 96.643547 in5 1 10 3 3 11 1646 2581 63 20 96.336823 such5 1 10 3 3 12 1729 2580 117 20 96.485046 business5 1 10 3 3 13 1866 2579 69 21 96.070511 since5 1 10 3 3 14 1956 2580 57 20 96.448891 that5 1 10 3 3 15 2033 2581 69 20 96.390831 time.4 1 10 3 4 0 776 2611 1327 29 -1 5 1 10 3 4 1 776 2611 38 22 96.498756 He5 1 10 3 4 2 827 2612 102 21 96.470436 furthers 1 10 3 4 3 941 2613 83 22 96.699409 states5 1 10 3 4 4 1036 2614 60 20 96.298439 that5 1 10 3 4 5 1109 2614 31 21 95.878624 he5 1 10 3 4 6 1153 2614 47 21 96.236694 has5 1 10 3 4 7 1214 2620 32 15 96.815025 no5 1 10 3 4 8 1259 2614 129 21 96.351357 intentions 1 10 3 4 9 1402 2614 28 21 96.620522 of5 1 10 3 4 10 1442 2620 59 15 96.127579 ever5 1 10 3 4 11 1513 2614 76 26 96.127579 beings 1 10 3 4 12 1602 2614 112 26 96.691589 engaged5 1 10 3 4 13 1729 2614 25 21 96.772636 in5 1 10 3 4 14 1769 2614 44 21 96.772636 thes 1 10 3 4 15 1827 2614 65 20 96.389290 fruits 1 10 3 4 16 1905 2614 52 21 96.252304 ands 1 10 3 4 17 1972 2614 131 25 96.108154 vegetable4 1 10 3 5 0 774 2647 1328 27 -1 5 1 10 3 5 1 774 2651 29 15 96.782707 or5 1 10 3 5 2 823 2647 61 20 96.049438 foods 1 10 3 5 3 904 2647 138 26 96.357132 brokerages 1 10 3 5 4 1062 2647 116 22 96.547127 business5 1 10 3 5 5 1199 2648 28 20 95.833031 in5 1 10 3 5 6 1248 2648 44 22 96.716042 thes 1 10 3 5 7 1312 2649 90 21 96.290451 futures 1 10 3 5 8 1423 2649 52 21 96.564842 ands 1 10 3 5 9 1497 2649 59 21 96.335144 that5 1 10 3 5 10 1578 2648 40 21 96.709198 his5 1 10 3 5 11 1639 2648 150 21 96.388153 retirement5 1 10 3 5 12 1811 2647 66 21 95.529778 from5 1 10 3 5 13 1900 2647 44 22 95.529778 thes 1 10 3 5 14 1965 2648 137 26 96.680328 brokerage4 1 10 3 6 0 775 2679 1327 28 -1 5 1 10 3 6 1 775 2679 116 22 95.955589 business5 1 10 3 6 2 909 2686 54 15 96.065735 was5 1 10 3 6 3 981 2681 45 20 96.395660 thes 1 10 3 6 4 1045 2682 82 21 96.362663 results 1 10 3 6 5 1145 2682 28 21 96.475372 of5 1 10 3 6 6 1192 2683 116 20 96.311905 business5 1 10 3 6 7 1327 2679 52 25 96.418495 ands 1 10 3 6 8 1398 2683 161 21 95.278023 commercials 1 10 3 6 9 1578 2682 204 22 96.256912 considerations5 1 10 3 6 10 1803 2682 51 20 96.291809 ands 1 10 3 6 11 1873 2687 53 16 96.291809 was5 1 10 3 6 12 1948 2682 25 20 95.604744 in5 1 10 3 6 13 1993 2687 31 15 95.604744 no5 1 10 3 6 14 2044 2687 58 20 96.946243 way4 1 10 3 7 0 775 2713 469 29 -1 5 1 10 3 7 1 775 2713 96 22 96.584282 related5 1 10 3 7 2 882 2715 26 20 96.121201 to5 1 10 3 7 3 919 2715 44 21 96.405563 thes 1 10 3 7 4 973 2715 102 22 96.405563 instant5 1 10 3 7 5 1085 2716 159 26 95.313934 proceeding. INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS, ETC. 1035 102° ‘Order Complaint counsel filed' aii‘ answer to ‘the motion, in which they’ dispute the claims of the moving ‘respondents: dnd’assert that’a, number of circumstances, ‘stich’ as the continued: use’ of the family’ namé'in a néw entity styled Stires ‘Bros. Ine, the fact’ that’ stich new ‘business operates out of the same address as’ that' of Jack Stires, Inc.; and other factors, show that: in’ essence the Stires brokerage | biismess is a continuing affair. © oe aa _. The moving respondents wepliedl to domplainit’ eeittigals answer on October 4, 1972, and’ subthitted ‘an ‘additional ‘affidavit by John C. Stires III: In this answer: they’ ‘pepresent' that there’i is no relationship between the’new corporation, Stires’ Brothers,’ Ine; ‘anid the moving respondents.* ” i The administrative law judge, in his certification, recommends that the motion be granted.* He believes the situation is similar to that in Borman Food Stores,:Iné.; Docket No.:8789,,wherein the Commission, by an order issued August 3, 1972 [p. 201 herein] dismissed the complaint as to’ certain of the respondents, Frank V.Condello‘and P & R Brokerage ' ‘Co: In: the opisiion ‘of the administrative law. judge, the moving ‘respondents’ have made‘ a showing’ that: they are:out of ‘the brokerage business, that’ they have been out of it. for three years, ‘and, finally, that’ theré is no ‘Yeasonable expectation they: will reenter.” We disagree with the administrative law judge’s conclusions and his recommendation on this question. There is a substantial dispute here on questions of fact which we do not believe can be disposed of on the basis of affidavits and counsel’s representations. First, there is the question whether or not Stires Brothers, Inc., is a continuation of the old firm. Complaint counsel contend that it is, and the representations made in affidavits and otherwise are inadequate to resolve the issue. There are also the questions of whether or not John C. Stires IT has gone out of the fruit and vegetable brokerage business and will not return to it. These questions are not necessarily resolved by an affidavit of discontinuance since such, without more, may not be sufficient to warrant dismissal as to an individual. See, for example, Lester 8. Cothermanv. Federal Trade Commission, 417 F.2d 587 (5th Cir. 1969). The Borman case, relied on by the administrative law athe affiant, ‘John Cc. Stires Ut, states that Stires Brothers, Inc., is operated by the son and by the brother of John C. Stires II, the named individual respondent, and that while Stires Brothers, Inc., engages in the fruit and vegetable brokerage business there are significant differences. in the buyers and sellers with which it deals compared with those with which Jack Stires, Inc., dealt. This affiant further states that there is no other connection between the new business and the moving respondents. and that the address is the same because such is the former residence of John C. Stires II, who sold it to his brother, Buel Stires, an officer in the new business, Stires Brothers, Ine. 5 The administrative law judge certified the matter because he believed the motion was addressed to the Commission’s administrative discretion. Order 81 FTC.

judge, does not constitute a precedent, for, dismissal here. That case is quite.different on, the facts. The. Commission. dismissed as to the individual. Frank.:.C., Condello: and: as to the brokerage partnership, P&R Brokerage Co., of which he was.the sole operator, on: the basis of a, showing that.Mr. Condello planned.to retire because he was in ill health, over seventy. years of age;and under strain caused by: the litigation and several deaths in his family. No showing has been. made. here of any circumstances of similar significance... 7 , In summary, we do not believe that the questions raised here should be decided on a partial record. Accordingly, we will. deny the:motion to -dismiss the. complaint. as to, Jack, :Stires,, Ine., a corporation, and John C. Stires II, an individual. , _ it ~ Coniplaint Coiinsels ‘Application for Review TEE a The weoonil question before the. Commission i is s complaint. counsel’s application for review. of: the: adyninistrative,. day judge’s order. granting ‘respondent Jewel.Companies, Inc.’s. application, for. issuance. of as subpoena requiring ‘the production-of-certain: records.in. the..Commission’s files for the purpose.of discovery...The:documents. sought: i include internal communications, minutes and records concerning the Commission’s decision to issue a complaint against respondents herein and complaints against others engaged in the fruit and. vegetable brokerage business.

More specifically, the demand covers documents, among: others, as follows: memoranda, communications and minutes relating to a motion filed May 23, 1969, entitled “Motion To Refrain From Issuing Proposed Complaints In Shipping Point Broker Cases;” the minute or related document concerning the decision to issue complaints as described in a communication from the Secretary of the Commission. to “Respondent” dated March. 24, 1969; the minute or minutes relating to the determination to issue the complaint against “Respondent;” communications or memoranda relating to recommendations to issue complaints as ‘a result of the investigation by the Commission of the fruit and vegetable brokerage practices; communications with trade associations, legislators and others with regard to issuance of designated complaints; certain minutes and communications relating to the matter of Jack Herzog & Co.; memoranda showing the Commis- ‘sion’s policy to consider or not to consider the public interest in connection with decisions to issue the complaints; and other described documents.

“INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS, ETC. 1037 1020 Order The administrative law judge, in his order of September: 26, 1972, granting ‘respondent Jewel Companies’ request for ‘production, asserted that the relief sought by the respondent in this instance and that sought and obtained in ‘a United States District Court, Jewel Companies, Ine. v. Fedéral Trade Commission, Civil No. 69-C-1673 (D.C.N.D: Tk, motion for’ production of documents granted August 15; 1969) ,° ‘airé thé same. He concluded ‘that the government had its full’ day ‘in court oi the issue of production: of the Commission’s: records, ‘that’ it had lost, ‘and that it cannot now; under the doctrine’ of collateral estoppel, attack the order‘issued by the court. we ~ Complaint counsel, in their petition for review, argue that respondent Jewel Companies, Inc. has not made the showing required by’ Com: mission rule Section 8.36. They also contend that the: district’ court: order -inthe Jewel Companies,’ Ine. case, supra, relied on by the administrative law judge is not’ binding because the order therein for’ production “never ‘became finalized, and was nevér' put'in issue, and directly determined by: a Court’ of competent jurisdiction” (complaint’ counsel's: application, ‘paige 6). Complaint’ counsel, ‘in’ their: supple:: mental memorandum, argue: that’ res: judicata ‘and related doctrines accord finality-only toa valid final judgment and that the wnappéaled interlocutory'order in this case is not entitléd to res’ judicata effect. - In an adjudicative proceeding an application for subpoenas for confidential documents of the Commission must be made under Commission rule Section 3.36. This rule requires, among other things, a showing of general relevancy of the material or information and the reasonableness of the scope of the request and a showing that the materia] or information is not available from other sources. Respondents have not adequately complied with the requirements of this rule. The claim of respondent Jewel Companies, Inc., that the district court action (Jewel Companies, Inc., supra) in effect remanded the respondents to the administrative proceedings for the production of the documents and a preliminary adjudication of the jurisdictional and statutory issues being litigated (see page 5, application for issuance of subpoena filed August 14, 1972) is rejected. The collateral action in 6 'The citations and the history of this litigation are as follows: The District Court for the Northern District of Ulinois on November 28, 1969, found that there was no basis at law to support a motion to dismiss complaint, and that the court had jurisdiction of the subject matter and the parties. The court certified the question to the court of appeals and leave was granted to appeal; Jewel Companies, Inc. v. Federal Trade Commission, Civil No. 69—C-1673 (D.C.N.D. Ill.) ; Jewel Companies, Inc., et al. v. Federal Trade Commission, 432 F. 2d 1155 (7th Cir. 1970) ; on remand from circuit court, Jewel Companies, Inc. v. Federal Trade Commission, No. 69-C-1673 (D.C.N.D. Ill, decision and order August 17, 1972) ; Jewel Companies, Inc, v. Federal Trade Commission, appeal docketed, No. 72-1382 (7th Cir.).* *Judgment in favor of the Commission entered March 15, 1973. 1038 FEDERAL TRADE, COMMISSION. DECISIONS Order: 81 F.T.C.

the district. court does, not: require, the. production, here sought. Upon the appeal .of,the district, court. decision, the, Circuit. Count. of Appeals © forthe Seventh Circuit held:that.the district court‘had. no ‘jurisdiction over: three..of the four: claims. made by: ‘respondents and, with. regard. tothe remaining claim, that.i isy the assertion that.Commissioner Mac- Intyre: didnot properly. exercise ‘his statutory discretion: in voting, for the, issuance of,the complaint, the.appeals court remanded to the dis-. trict:court for further proceedings, stating ‘that the. remaining ques-. tion, was inherently; a. Jegal.one.and did:not, involve, factual. considerations. Jewel Companies, Inc.,,et al... Federal, Trade Commission, 432, F.2d :1155,.1159, (2d Gir. 1970). The; district: court,,in,its decision and order: oniremand, also. found that, there was no. further. factual i issue -to; be decided; and held that Commissioner, MacIntyre. voted properly by; exercising his discretion.in.favor of issuance.of the. complaint. Jewel, Companies; Ing.. v.i;Federal Trade.; Commission; No. ..69-C-1673. (D.C.N.D. T., /March., AT,,.1972). Thus,.all issues, were decided in the Commission’ 8; favor, (one i is on appeal, but it involves. no factual deter, imation) ‘and, there, is. no: basis: for the elaim | ‘that. the: matter. was remanded to.the-Commission, for. the; production, ofthe. documents... (, Moreover, there is no. other, support: fori Jewel Companies’ position. that; ithe result:of the court, adjudication-ywas to, remand the matter. to the Commission for the resolving of the. .issues at the administrative level. Of the claims made by the 1 respondents in their collateral action it appears that the documents here sought could have relevance possibly: only to. two of:them-that is, the claim as:to Commissioner Mac- Intyre’s exercise of his discretion and the claim the Commission did not make a finding that the issuance of the complaint was in the public interest. The former claim was found. by the courts not to involve a factual issue; the latter, we think, was disposed of by the circuit court where it, holds there is nothing in the language of Sections 2(c) and: 11 of the Clayton Act,.as compared with Section 2(a) of that Act and: Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act, which requires a find-i ing that:the issuance of the. complaint be-in. the public:interest. The court further stated that the plaintiffs there were attempting to inter-. fere with the discretion of the Commission in issuing its complaint: and the courts. have no jur isdiction to, . decide such, inherently prosecutorial, decisions. ' The case of George H. Lee Co. v. Federal Praide Commission, 118 F.. 2d 583 (8th Cir. 1940), relied on ‘by the administrative law judge to: support his position of collateral estoppel, is not controlling here. Tn. that casé a district court, in’ a separate: libel suit, prior ‘to: the Commission action had resolved the. basic issue,.of the alleged falsity of ~ INTERLOCUTORY..ORDERS,:-ETC.. 1039 102k Order:

that respondent’s advertising. Later,,the:court of appeals on review of the Commission’s case held the Commission could not, on an issue settled by a court of competént jurisdiction, réach ‘a ‘contrary conclusion. The Commission. here,is-not.; going: contrary to ;an: issue. finally settled, by a court. Thus, the Lee case is clearly distinguishable. The records sought; ‘to the extent they exist; would cover: confidential internal memoranda and papers of the Commission, incltiding those which relate to the mental processes of the:Commissioners. The courts have not generally allowed any such inquiry. In Sterling Drug, Ince. ede5 1 2 2 5 2 924 1024 12 2 91.619492 ade5 1 2 2 5 3 989 1022 251 55 89.374283 Commission,5 1 2 2 5 4 1239 1024 74 48 93.050140 4505 1 2 2 5 5 1316 1025 97 43 75.946198 F.2d5 1 2 2 5 6 1420 1026 69 42 94.739075 6985 1 2 2 5 7 1498 1023 65 58 52.952293 (D:5 1 2 2 5 8 1561 1017 42 45 24.787888 iC.5 1 2 2 5 9 1611 1025 76 47 67.299271 Cir.5 1 2 2 5 10 1692 1026 122 50 51.804142 1971);5 1 2 2 5 11 1819 1022 170 51 42.611023 ‘the-court4 1 2 2 6 0 667 1063 1330 108 -1 5 1 2 2 6 1 667 1070 89 69 42.014442 held5 1 2 2 6 2 762 1063 80 71 96.298996 that5 1 2 2 6 3 851 1063 72 76 91.552437 thes 1 2 2 6 4 943 1073 169 55 3.466644 sranting’5 1 2 2 6 5 1108 1076 51 86 49.306671 or5 1 2 2 6 6 1162 1075 61 61 73.674118 diss 1 2 2 6 7 1237 1068 124 67 2.735207 Overy,5 1 2 2 6 8 1373 1076 44 59 82.503075 if’5 1 2 2 6 9 1416 1074 99 97 38.526314 ite5 1 2 2 6 10 1524 1070 62 71 96.804047 for5 1 2 2 6 11 1598 1068 81 62 91.759003 this5 1 2 2 6 12 1677 1068 99 66 94.852592 kinds 1 2 2 6 13 1784 1078 49 53 96.465027 of5 1 2 2 6 14 1841 1069 156 71 74.090973 internal’2 1 3 0 0 0 661 1027 1328 424 -1 3 1 3 1 0 0 661 1027 1328 424 -1 4 1 3 1 1 0 664 1027 362 25 -1 5 1 3 1 1 1 664 1027 362 25 95.000000 4 1 3 1 2 0 661 1052 1328 310 -1 5 1 3 1 2 1 661 1052 1328 310 95.000000 5 1 3 1 2 2 1509 1093 480 52 95.000000 4 1 3 1 3 0 661 1362 1244 47 -1 5 1 3 1 3 1 661 1362 1244 47 95.000000 4 1 3 1 4 0 661 1409 879 42 -1 5 1 3 1 4 1 661 1409 879 42 95.000000 2 1 4 0 0 0 1474 1340 520 312 -1 3 1 4 1 0 0 1477 1340 517 280 -1 4 1 4 1 1 0 1864 1340 130 90 -1 5 1 4 1 1 1 1864 1421 8 9 34.036987 05 1 4 1 1 2 1897 1340 97 90 57.379478 hi4 1 4 1 2 0 1516 1415 478 85 -1 5 1 4 1 2 1 1516 1445 14 43 30.265892 55 1 4 1 2 2 1547 1442 55 52 51.494350 we5 1 4 1 2 3 1596 1420 160 80 0.000000 wnoldthie5 1 4 1 2 4 1768 1415 226 71 38.721024 adritinistia~4 1 4 1 3 0 1810 1482 184 35 -1 5 1 4 1 3 1 1810 1479 184 48 82.629372 collateral’4 1 4 1 4 0 1781 1533 213 35 -1 5 1 4 1 4 1 1781 1530 148 49 0.000000 iments te!’ Te “We ‘will set aside his j siete by nape Jewel Conipanies, order. °° ‘It is ordered, That the ‘motion to dismiss the complaint as to Jack’ Stires, Inc., a corporation, and John C. Stires IT, an individual, certified to the Comitnission by. the administrative laiw judge on October 10, 1972, be, and it hereby is, denied. i It is further ordered, That complaint ‘counsel’s application for re-’ view of the administrative law judge’s order granting respondent Jewel Companies, Ine.’s application for issuance of a subpoena, filed October 8, 1972, be, and it hereby is, granted. _ | Ttis further ordered, That the administrative law judge’s order filed September 26, 1972,’ granting application for subpoena requiring the production of documents, papers and other materials in the records of the Federal Trade’ Commission, be, and ‘it hereby i is, vacated and set’ aside.

It is further ordered; ‘That the ‘subpoena duces tecum issued by the administrative law judge October 5, 1972, in connection with this matter, addressed to the Secretary of the Commission, Charles A. Tobin, returnable November 7, 1972, be, and it hereby is, quashed.