Exxon Corporation
Volume 85 · 85 F.T.C. 82
Cite this decision
Exxon Corporation, 85 F.T.C. 82 (1975). Consumer Law Library, https://consumerlawlibrary.org/decisions/v085-0023
Report an error in this record (decision id v085-0023)
Cited by 0 later FTC decisions
Cites
Text (OCR of the scan at left; may contain errors)
IN THE MATTER OF EXXON CORPORATION, ET AL.
Docket 8934. Or Jan. , 1975 Denial of application by all respondents except Texac for review of administrative law judge s ruling denying motions to exclude issues beyond the scope of the complaint.
Appeamnces For the Commi sion: Pete A. Whiw, James H. Thessin, James Egan, Jr. and Ira S. Nordlicht. For the respondents: William Simon, J. Wallace Adair, McKean EDERAL TRADE COMMISSION DECISIONS Order 85 F.T.
Whitehead Wilson, DOn01Jan, Leisure, Newton Irvne and Steptoe & Johnson all of Wash., D.C. William Weitzel, Wickes, Riddell Bloomer, Jaboci McGuire, Vincent A. Moccio, Charles F. Rice Benjamin T. Richards and Kaye, Scholer, Fiermn, Hays Handler all of New York City. W. Bernard Fudge, Jesse P. Luton, John H. Chiles and George S. Wolbert, Jr. all of Houston, Tex. M. J. Keating and Kirkland Ellis Chicago, Il. Pillsbury, Madison Sutro San Francisco, Calif. and Donald A. Bright Los Angeles, Calif. ORDER DENYING Application FOR REVIEW By leave of the administrative law judge under Section 3.23(b) of our rules of practice, all respondents except Texaco have fied an Application for Review of Ruling (of the-administrative law judge) Denying Motions of Respondents to Exclude Issues Beyond the Scope of the complaint. Specifically, respondents argue that certain allegations concerning their foreign operations and their relationships with financial institutions, which complaint counsel have stated their intention to prove, are not related to any of the charges contained in the complaint in this matter. By order of Oct. 29, 1974, the law judge denied their motions to exclude such issues for the puroses of discovery and presentation of evidence. Complaint counsel do not oppose review of this order.
The law judge s order is not appropriate for interlocutory review. The question of whether evidence on particular factual propositions is relevant to one or more allegations in a complaint is well within the area of trial management and, in the absence of a clear abuse thereof, is committed to the sound discretion of the law judge. Accordingly, It is ordered That the aforesaid application for review be, and it hereby is, denied.