Century 21 Commodore Plaza, Inc

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

IN THE MATTER OF CENTURY 21 COMMODORE PLAZA, INC., ET AL.

Docket 9088. Interlocutory Order, Feb. 1, 1977 Commission affrms ALJ's ruling that he has authority to issue an access order. Appearances For the Commission: Sandra M Wilmore, June S. Katz. Donna H Greenfield, W. Randolph Smith and Anne E. Dewey. For the respondents: G. F Richman, Frates, Floyd, Pearson Stewart, Richman Greer, Miami, Fla. W. L. Miller, Stein, Halpert & Miller, Washington, D. G; Jerome S. Richman, Miami, Fla. Joel Bennett, Washinl;on D. G; and Joseph S. Paglino, Intervenor for Commodore Plaza, Miami, Fla.

ORDER Respondents have applied for review of the administrative law judge s order of December 28, 1976, granting complaint counsel' motion for an order compellng the granting of access to Morgan Bay, a body of water contiguous to the beach area leased to owners at respondents' condominium project. Pursuant to Section 3. 23(b) ofthe Commission s Rules of Practice, the ALJ determined that his ruling that he has authority to issue an access order was appropriate for immediate review. Confining ourselves to the question of the law judge s authority to issue such an order, we affirm. We would add to the law judge s treatment of the issues that respondents' application does not challenge the Commission s statutory authority to issue such an order. Sections 6(a) and 6(g) of the Federal Trade Commission Act authorize the Commission "(tJo gather and compile information concerning, and to investigate from time to time the ' . . business, conduct, (and) practices ' . . of any corporation engaged in or whose business affects commerce * * *" and "to make rules and regulations for the purpose of carrying out the provisions" of the FTC Act. The latter provision is to be construed in a manner that will "render the statutory design effective in terms of the policies behind its enactment and to avoid an interpretation which would make such policies more difficult of fulfillment particularly where ' . . that interpretation is consistent with the plain language of the statute. National Petroleum Refiners Ass L We, Uwrefore, have not cU!1sidered re pondent ' various arguments going to the re ev"ncy ofthe requested discovery Or their suggestioll that ,HI access order would be unlawful because a portion ofthe lake. boll,om is owned by other private parties 108 Order FTC, 482 F.2d 672, 689 (D. C. Cir. 1973), cert. denied, 415 U.S. 951 (1974). Orders requiring access to tangible, as well as documentary, evidence are well-established. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 34. We, therefore, can discern no reason why the language of Sections 6(a) and 6(g) is not suffciently broad to authorize such relief, provided that "the inquiry is within the authority of the agency, the demand is not too indefinite and the information is reasonably relevant. United States v. Morton Salt Co., 338 U.s. 632, 652 (1950). Accordingly, It is ordered That the aforesaid ruling of the administrative law judge that he has authority to issue an access order be, and it hereby is, affrmed.

Complaint 89 FTC