Exxon Corporation

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

IN THE MA TI'R OF EXXON CORPORATION, ET AL.

Docket 8931;. interlocutory Order, Mar. 8, 1.977 Denial of respondents' motion for reconsideration. ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION On ,Jan. 25, 1977, the Commission issued an order denying respondents' request for interlocutory review of the administrative law judge s protective order of Jan. 5 on the ground that the ALJ, pursuant to Section :3. 23(b) of the Commission s Rules of Practice, had not made a determination that an appeal would be appropriate. The Commission noted that, despite the parties' suggestions to the contrary, the law judge had certified to the Commission only one portion of his protective order (paragraph nine) regarding assurances of prior notification before confidential information is disclosed pursuant to Freedom of Information Act and Congressional committee requests. The portion of the order certified was the subject of a separate Commission order of Jan. 31. In that order the Commission again noted that the ALJ had certified only one portion of the order. Respondents argue that the Jan. 25 order unless modified, wil work serious prejudice to respondents since " (iJn light of the uniformity of the parties' interpretation of the Administrative Law Judge s certification and the absence of any indication that such certification was in any way limited to fewer than an of the issues raised by the protective order, respondents refrained from filing any separate certification request with the Administrative Law Judge. Finally, respondents argue that the Jan. 31 order "appears to confirm the validity of respondents' concerns about the reliability of any protective order entered by this agency.

With respect to respondents' claim of prejudice, the Commission notes that on Feb. 3, the ALJ issued an order confirming that his certification was limited to paragraph nine. On Feb. 10 in consideration of respondents' assertion that the reason they did not request certification of my protective order within the time allowed was their understanding that the entire order had been certified " he authorized the filing of respondents' request for certification and, thereupon, denied the request. As for respondents' claim going to the merits of the Commission s Jan. 31 order, the Commission adheres to its view that the order provides appropriate protection. Accordingly, It is ordered, That the aforesaid motion for reconsideration be, and it hereby is, denied.

CEZAR, LTD. , ET AL 169 J69 Complaint