Kellogg Company
Volume 86 · 86 F.T.C. 318
Cite this decision
Kellogg Company, 86 F.T.C. 318 (1975). Consumer Law Library, https://consumerlawlibrary.org/decisions/v086-0043
Report an error in this record (decision id v086-0043)
Cited by 0 later FTC decisions
Cites
Text (OCR of the scan at left; may contain errors)
IN nm MATTER OF KELLOGG COMPANY, ET AL.
Docket 88R:J. Order, July 2.' , 197.5 Denial of application of respondent General Mils, Inc., for stay of commencement of complaint counsel's deposition probrram pending appeal. Appearances For the Commission: Anthony L. Joseph. For the respondents: Bierbower Rockefeller, H owrey, Simon Baker Murchison and Clifford, Warnke, Glass, Mcilwain Finney, Wash., D.C. Sulli' van Cromwell and Cmvath, Swaine Moore New York City. Chadwell, Kayser, Ruggles, McGee Hastings and Barnett P. Ruthenberg, Chicago, Il C. L. Whitehill, J. J. Jenko, R. R. Ileer, J. F. Finn and Robert J. Fulgency, Minneapolis, Minn. Peter J. Deluca and Bruce L. Bozeman White Plains, N.
ORDER DENYING Application OF RESPONDENT GENERAL MILLS INC., I"OR STAY OF COMMENCEMENT OF COMPLAINT COUNSEL DEPOSITION PROGRAM PENDING App,;AL This matter is before us on the application of respondent General Mills, Inc., for a stay of the commencement of complaint counsel's deposition program pending appeal.
The administrative law judge, by order dated July 15, 1975, denied respondents' joint motion to nullify the law judge s order of June 19 1975, granting complaint counsel's application for the taking depositions. On July 18, 1975, respondents filed a joint request under Section :J.2:J(b) of the Commission s Rules of Practice, 16 CYR. 9:J.23(b), and on the same day, the law judge denied the application of respondent General Mils for a stay of the taking of depositions pending appeal.
The administrative law judge s order denying respondents' motion to MARALCO ENTERPRISF,S, INC., ET AL. :119 319 Complaint nullify his previous order granting complaint counsel's application for the taking of depositions wil be subject to interloeutory review by the Commission only if the order is certified by the judge and the Commission, in its discretion, permits tbe appeal. Rules of Practice Section 3.2B(b), 16 C. R. Section :i.23(b), Missouri Portland Cement Co. 80 F. C. 1035 (1972).
Even if the order was subject to interlocutory review under Section 2:i(b), it would be reversible only if there was a clear abuse of discretion, Kellogg Co., Docket No. 8883, Order of May 29, 1974 Denying Applications for Review at 3, and respondent General Mills has failed to make the necessary showing.
It is ordered That the aforesaid application for a stay is denied.