Exxon Corporation
Volume 83 · 83 F.T.C. 233
Cited as a basis for the FTC Notice of Penalty Offenses on Auto Rentals (1978).
Cite this decision
Exxon Corporation, 83 F.T.C. 233 (1973). Consumer Law Library, https://consumerlawlibrary.org/decisions/v083-0011
Report an error in this record (decision id v083-0011)
Cited by 1 later FTC decisions
Notice of Penalty Offense references are listed separately above in the existing Phase 1 links.
- AUTOMOTIVE BREAKTHROUGH SCIENCES, INe., ET AL cited_neutral
Cites
Text (OCR of the scan at left; may contain errors)
IN THE MATTER OF EXXON CORPORATION, ET AL.
Docket 8934. Interlocutory Order, July 27, 1978. Order quashing subpoena duces tecum directed to Standard Oil Company of California without prejudice to renewal under Part 3 of the Commission’s rules.
Appearances For the Commission: Robert EF. Liedquist and others. For the respondent: Turner H. McBaine and Wallace L. Kaapcke of Pillsbury, Madison & Sutro, San Francisco, California and David J. McKean of McKean, Whitehead & Wilson, Washington, D.C. ‘ ORDER QUASHING INVESTIGATIONAL SUBPOENA This matter is before the Commission on a motion filed by respondent Standard Oil Company of California (“Standard of California”) to quash a subpoena duces tecum served upon respondent by the Bureau of Competition pursuant to Section 2.7 of the Commission’s Rules of Practice (Nonadjudicative Procedures). The subpoena was issued in connection with a Commission Investigatory Resolution dated December 21, 1971. On July 17, 1973, the Commission issued under Part 3 of its Rules of Practice (Adjudicative Proceedings) a complaint in this matter against Standard of California and other petroleum Order 83 F.T.C.
companies. Respondent moves that the subpoena be quashed on several grounds including (1) issuance of the adjudicative complaint precludes further proceedings under the subpoena issued pursuant to the Commission’s rules pertaining to Part 2 investigations, (2) the subpoena amounts to the type of investigational demand allegedly prohibited by the Commission in All-State Industries of North Carolina, 72 F.T.C. 1020, and (3) the subpoena is excessively burdensome.
Without reaching the question of burdensomeness,’ it is clear that the subpoena, having been issued under Part 2 of the rules, should be quashed without prejudice to renewal by complaint counsel before an administrative law judge under the applicable provisions of Part 3 of the Commission’s Rules of Practice. Accordingly, It is ordered, That the subpoena be, and it hereby is, quashed without prejudice to renewal before an administrative law judge under Part 3 of the Commission’s Rules of Practice.