General Motors Corporation

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

IN THE MATTER OF GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION, ET AL.

Docket 9071;. Interlocutory Order, Sept. 9. ).977 Denial of complaint counsel's application for review of various provisions of a protective order issued by the administrative law judge. ORDER DENYING Application FOR REVIEW Complaint counsel apply for review of various provisions of a protective order (as to respondent General Motors) issued by the administrative law judge on March 29, 1977. The law judge has not determined that interlocutory review would be appropriate under the Commission s Rules, Section 3.23(b), but complaint counsel contend that the Commission should nevertheless exercise its inherent authority to review a "clear abuse of discretion or the exceeding of delegated authority.

It appears that the protective order may contravene the general policy the Commission has consistently pursued regarding the protection of confidential business information. However, complaint counsel have offered no cogent reasons why the Commission should depart from the requirements of Section 3.23(b) and entertain this appeal in the absence of certification by the law judge. Complaint counsel state that they could "work under" the AL.Ps order and it is apparent that respondent did not comply with the Commission process on the condition that the protective order be entered. We therefore decline to review the protective order at this time. The question, of course, may be taken uP. at such time as the Commission is presented the ALJ' s initial decision for review or, perhaps, on other occasions when the order is found to interfere with proper use of the documents in question.

The aforesaid application for review is accordingly denied. It is so ordered.

CONCURRING STATEMENT OF COMMISSIONERS COLLIER AND CLANTON We concur in the Commission s disposition of this appeal for the procedural reasons set forth in the order. We reach this conclusion even though we believe it is clear that the protective order is a clear abuse of the ALJ' s discretion. Among other things, the order purports to require prenotification of respondent General Motors before , The C'..mmisslon has determined to treatcomp!5int counsel' s "application astimeJy fied. GENERAL MOTORS CORP. , ET AL. 173 172 Interlocutory Order release of information and to restrict access to documents without regard for the Freedom of Information Act (and at least to that extent is completely outside the law judge s authority), and requires unprecedented restrictions on the access of the Commission s employees and return of documents, without any explanation or findings on the record that such extraordinary treatment is necessary. In this case, however, and for reasons stated in the Commission s order, there is no showing that the ALJ's protective order works any irreparable prejudice on the rights of the parties or the public. 174 FlmERAL TRADE COMMISSION DECISIOKS Interlocutory Order 90 FTC.