Warner-Lambert Company

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

- Order 2 1 2 0 0 0 1142 251 433 87 -1 3 1 2 1 0 0 1142 251 433 87 -1 4 1 2 1 1 0 1142 251 433 87 -1 5 1 2 1 1 1 1142 252 103 83 50.950859 In:5 1 2 1 1 2 1240 273 71 54 96.338966 THES 1 2 1 1 3 1330 251 149 87 65.400345 Marrer5 1 2 1 1 4 1497 272 78 36 48.541084 or.2 1 3 0 0 0 964 333 777 95 -1 3 1 3 1 0 0 964 333 777 95 -1 4 1 3 1 1 0 964 333 777 95 -1 5 1 3 1 1 1 964 345 255 77 0.000000 WARNER. LAMBERT COMPANY.

“Docket 8891. interlocutory Order, Sept. 18, 1978. : Order ‘denying appeals of complaint counsel from rulings of the administrative oe “law judge. issuing subpoenas duces: tecum under ‘Sections 3.36 and 3.34 (b) oof ‘the Commission’ 's rules: ‘and: returning matter to judge for rescheduling of return ‘dates of Subpoenas.5 1 5 1 4 5 1228 642 227 54 94.080582 Commissioners 1 5 1 4 6 1465 647 96 38 96.503227 Dixon5 1 5 1 4 7 1573 650 55 35 96.232430 not5 1 5 1 4 8 1643 641 180 63 24.899002 concurring.5 1 5 1 4 9 1963 656 8 2 0.000000 o2 1 6 0 0 0 1156 697 315 86 -1 3 1 6 1 0 0 1156 697 315 86 -1 4 1 6 1 1 0 1156 697 315 86 -1 5 1 6 1 1 1 1156 713 40 44 29.839149 A5 1 6 1 1 2 1220 697 251 86 0.000000 “Appearonces2 1 7 0 0 0 661 762 1366 303 -1 3 1 7 1 0 0 661 762 1349 132 -1 4 1 7 1 1 0 663 762 1347 112 -1 5 1 7 1 1 1 663 803 149 39 31.977478 oor5 1 7 1 1 2 839 786 68 54 96.357681 thes 1 7 1 1 3 914 764 265 87 0.000000 Cominidsin:5 1 7 1 1 4 1200 800 162 38 79.870438 Edwards 1 7 1 1 5 1380 806 41 31 79.721771 F.5 1 7 1 1 6 1439 789 149 62 55.462044 Downs,5 1 7 1 1 7 1619 782 164 92 84.535736 Wallace5 1 7 1 1 8 1784 786 50 76 71.939362 ‘8.5 1 7 1 1 9 1864 762 146 92 83.037476 Snyder,4 1 7 1 2 0 661 820 1021 80 -1 5 1 7 1 2 1 661 872 2 2 50.880371 :5 1 7 1 2 2 687 820 156 80 63.451572 ‘Williams 1 7 1 2 3 863 853 34 43 90.342056 8.5 1 7 1 2 4 902 839 140 55 73.342751 Busker5 1 7 1 2 5 1051 856 69 32 96.367523 ands 1 7 1 2 6 1129 848 192 40 93.112320 Patrick5 1 7 1 2 7 1280 844 42 55 82.455612 E.5 1 7 1 2 8 1332 836 133 63 96.113602 Power,5 1 7 1 2 9 1471 849 53 39 0.000000 Sf3 1 7 2 0 0 698 872 1329 168 -1 4 1 7 2 1 0 741 872 1269 84 -1 5 1 7 2 1 1 741 901 77 42 91.513481 For5 1 7 2 1 2 823 903 58 34 91.513481 thes 1 7 2 1 3 892 900 222 50 59.023338 respondent:5 1 7 2 1 4 1121 901 159 47 96.444969 Mudge,5 1 7 2 1 5 1277 902 99 48 96.234833 Rose,5 1 7 2 1 6 1390 905 144 37 92.428391 Guthrie5 1 7 2 1 7 1546 907 31 32 92.269325 &5 1 7 2 1 8 1588 872 215 84 83.457657 Alewander,5 1 7 2 1 9 1803 894 86 43 96.658447 News 1 7 2 1 10 1903 872 107 79 95.958786 York,4 1 7 2 2 0 699 941 1328 98 -1 5 1 7 2 2 1 699 941 83 54 96.669693 News 1 7 2 2 2 804 956 97 51 96.900795 Yorks 1 7 2 2 3 917 956 70 60 97.001442 ands 1 7 2 2 4 998 951 172 88 82.021721 Bergson,5 1 7 2 2 5 1190 947 188 74 92.250893 Borkland,5 1 7 2 2 6 1379 956 184 65 45.640030 Margolis5 1 7 2 2 7 1577 957 36 47 72.395264 &5 1 7 2 2 8 1614 950 136 85 68.332253 Adler5 1 7 2 2 9 1770 945 257 69 84.057739 Washington,4 1 7 2 3 0 698 1006 344 59 -1 5 1 7 2 3 1 698 1006 42 55 70.873741 D.5 1 7 2 3 2 745 1006 42 59 83.467163 C.5 1 7 2 3 3 1036 1033 6 7 45.043621 :2 1 8 0 0 0 651 1063 1427 156 -1 3 1 8 1 0 0 651 1063 1427 120 -1 4 1 8 1 1 0 651 1063 1427 95 -1 5 1 8 1 1 1 651 1112 23 16 45.971760 a5 1 8 1 1 2 699 1063 138 94 0.000000 Ones 1 8 1 1 3 847 1089 192 67 54.667046 Denying5 1 8 1 1 4 1037 1068 225 77 0.000000 Coupuauyr5 1 8 1 1 5 1290 1072 178 61 0.000000 Couns’5 1 8 1 1 6 1470 1112 24 21 53.651119 §5 1 8 1 1 7 1517 1098 140 38 96.243668 APPEALS 1 8 1 1 8 1688 1101 95 30 28.508301 “FROM5 1 8 1 1 9 1802 1079 235 79 24.645454 ‘Discovery5 1 8 1 1 10 2076 1095 2 2 1.489830 ,4 1 8 1 2 0 924 1137 833 82 -1 5 1 8 1 2 1 924 1184 2 2 0.000000 ~5 1 8 1 2 2 963 1143 163 67 7.817551 Roranes5 1 8 1 2 3 1139 1162 39 25 95.697380 OF5 1 8 1 2 4 1195 1137 308 82 38.267189 Apinisrnarive5 1 8 1 2 5 1525 1151 84 47 95.992325 Laws 1 8 1 2 6 1632 1151 125 53 29.753563 Super2 1 9 0 0 0 652 1203 1385 1156 -1 3 1 9 1 0 0 652 1203 1382 726 -1 4 1 9 1 1 0 740 1203 1285 78 -1 5 1 9 1 1 1 740 1209 96 66 90.283394 This5 1 9 1 1 2 843 1206 125 73 96.799393 matters 1 9 1 1 3 986 1227 41 46 93.823051 is5 1 9 1 1 4 1033 1233 131 44 88.551529 before.5 1 9 1 1 5 1170 1224 68 42 95.627129 thes 1 9 1 1 6 1241 1211 230 69 94.858437 Commissions 1 9 1 1 7 1490 1213 98 65 92.037987 upon.5 1 9 1 1 8 1594 1217 156 64 96.083382 appeals5 1 9 1 1 9 1759 1224 45 50 96.119667 by5 1 9 1 1 10 1823 1203 202 71 45.547756 complaint4 1 9 1 2 0 697 1271 1312 63 -1 5 1 9 1 2 1 697 1273 135 46 95.266479 counsels 1 9 1 2 2 842 1274 150 51 95.532173 seeking5 1 9 1 2 3 1011 1271 145 63 96.788605 reversal5 1 9 1 2 4 1178 1285 40 43 96.619545 of5 1 9 1 2 5 1232 1287 72 34 96.711868 two5 1 9 1 2 6 1324 1283 132 43 96.274002 rulings5 1 9 1 2 7 1476 1280 97 37 96.851318 made5 1 9 1 2 8 1594 1284 43 42 96.871414 by5 1 9 1 2 9 1656 1284 59 31 96.135071 thes 1 9 1 2 10 1733 1282 276 45 96.417900 administrative4 1 9 1 3 0 697 1309 1337 73 -1 5 1 9 1 3 1 697 1332 66 32 92.763237 laws 1 9 1 3 2 781 1328 105 54 97.005188 judges 1 9 1 3 3 904 1309 125 67 96.880775 during5 1 9 1 3 4 1048 1329 58 44 96.965805 thes 1 9 1 3 5 1123 1345 115 32 96.770691 courses 1 9 1 3 6 1255 1335 38 31 96.261902 of5 1 9 1 3 7 1312 1346 19 21 96.261902 a5 1 9 1 3 8 1351 1335 141 47 96.271645 pretrial5 1 9 1 3 9 1510 1334 144 41 96.479530 hearings 1 9 1 3 10 1671 1333 222 33 96.298935 conferences 1 9 1 3 11 1885 1344 36 27 96.332382 in5 1 9 1 3 12 1939 1332 95 41 70.472244 this.4 1 9 1 4 0 697 1359 1312 71 -1 5 1 9 1 4 1 697 1380 124 44 96.793335 matters 1 9 1 4 2 836 1383 80 32 96.456284 held5 1 9 1 4 3 931 1381 52 41 62.853878 on.5 1 9 1 4 4 990 1359 121 71 95.680450 March5 1 9 1 4 5 1126 1375 156 50 65.870255 20,.1973.5 1 9 1 4 6 1298 1385 73 40 95.768951 Thes 1 9 1 4 7 1385 1384 75 32 96.659767 firsts 1 9 1 4 8 1475 1380 117 46 96.659767 rulings 1 9 1 4 9 1606 1383 173 33 96.935738 directed5 1 9 1 4 10 1762 1371 20 60 96.879807 i5 1 9 1 4 11 1771 1394 151 34 96.185440 issuance5 1 9 1 4 12 1935 1383 41 32 96.470909 of5 1 9 1 4 13 1990 1394 19 20 96.943794 a4 1 9 1 5 0 652 1434 1357 44 -1 5 1 9 1 5 1 652 1440 2 2 0.000000 subpoena duces tecum to the Secretary of the Commission under Section 3.36 of the Commission’s Rules of Practice directing production of ‘certain reports, comments and analyses. prepared by. Dr.. Patricia Charache and Dr. Alan Gittelson of Johns Hopkins University. The second ruling directed issuance of subpoenas duces tecum _ to Drs. Charache and Gittelson under Section 3.34(b) of the Commission’s rules directing production of essentially the same material called for by the Section 3. 36. subpoena issued upon the Secretary. By orders of April 18, 1973, the Commission stayed the return dates of the three subpoenas pending disposition of the appeals. ; “The facts. giving rise to the appeals are undisputed. Briefly, during the investigation prior to the issuance of complaint, respondent Warner-Lambert. submitted to Commission staff certain tests conducted by the company which allegedly supported the company’s claims as to the effectiveness of Listerine Antiseptic as.a cold remedy. ~ The tests were subsequently turned over to Drs. Charache and Gittelson, who had been hired as consultants by Commission staff to assist in the preparation of the matter for complaint. The dogtors analyzed »: Order 83 F.T.C.

the tests and submitted reports thereon to Commission staff, which reports, according to complaint counsel, are critical of respondent’s tests. It is these reports and any other related comments or analyses of the two doctors that respondent sought, first from the Commission’s files by motion filed pursuant to Section 3.36 of the Commission’s Rules of Practice, and secondly, directly from the doctors themselves by motion filed under Section 3.34(b) of the rules. Respondent does not seriously contend that what it seeks by the subpoenas does not fall within the scope of complaint counsel’s work product for which a strong showing justifying disclosure must be made. Respondent argues, rather, that it made the required showing to the administrative law judge, that the judge was satisfied with that showing and that his rulings ought not be disturbed in the absence of a clear abuse of his discretion."

We need not decide whether the administrative law judge erred in holding that the reports must be produced. Compare Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1) and (4)(A), Advisory Committee Notes on 1970 Amendment, 28 U.S.C.A. at 160-161 (1972). Administrative law judges have discretion with respect to the conduct of adjudicative proceedings. This | discretion will not be disturbed except for its clear abuse; and considering all of the circumstances, we find no such clear abuse here. Accordingly, ;

It ts ordered, That the appeal of complaint counsel, filed March 27, 1973, from a ruling by the administrative law judge issuing a subpoena duces tecum under Section 3.36 of the Commission’s Rules of Practice be, and it hereby is, denied.

It ts further ordered, That the appeal of complaint counsel, filed April 12, 1973, from a ruling by the administrative law judge issuing a subpoena duces tecum under Section 3.84(b) of the Commission’s Rules of Practice be, and it hereby is, denied. It is further ordered, That the matter be returned to the administrative law judge for rescheduling of return dates of the aforesaid subpoenas. , Commissioner Dixon not concurring.

1 Response to Complaint Counsel’s Appeals Under Section 3.36, filed April 6, 1973, at pp. 8-9; Response to Complaint Counsel’s Application for Review Under Section 3.23, filed April 25, 1973, at pp. 2-9.

AMERADA HESS CORPORATION, ET AL. 4X7 Complaint