Consumer Law Library

Retail Credit Company

Volume 86 · 86 F.T.C. 652

Citation
86 F.T.C. 652
Docket
8954
Decision
1975-09-16
Document type
interlocutory order
Case type
procedural
Outcome
other
Relief
other
Commission counsel
Virginia M. Conway, Robert W. Russell and David G. Grimes, Jr
Respondent counsel
E. D. DeVaney, Jr. Atlanta, Ga. , and Suther- land, Asbill Brennan Wash., D
Source
Original volume PDF
Original PDF
This decision as a PDF

Cite this decision

Retail Credit Company, 86 F.T.C. 652 (1975). Consumer Law Library, https://consumerlawlibrary.org/decisions/v086-0079

Report an error in this record (decision id v086-0079)

Order status: unknown. Sunset may be extended by the latest qualifying federal-court complaint alleging an order violation; complaints, dismissal/appeal outcomes, and respondent-specific extensions are not fully tracked.

Cited by 0 later FTC decisions

Cites

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

IN THE MATTER OF RETAIL CREDIT COMPANY Docket 89.54. Order, Sept. , 1.97.'; Directions issued to administrative law judge on disposition of ex parte communication.

Appearances For the Commission: Virginia M. Conway, Robert W. Russell and David G. Grimes, Jr.

For the respondent: E. D. Delaney, Jr. Atlanta, Ga. , and Sutherland, Asbill Brennan Wash., D.

ORDER TO ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DIRECTING DISPOSITION m' Ex PARTE COMMUNICATION The administrative law judge has certified to the Commission pursuant to Section 4.7(c) of the rules of practice, a letter he received on July 14, 1975, addressed to "Administrative Law Judge, Federal Trade Commission, Washington, D.

The letter clearly constitutes an ex parte communication under Section 4.7(a) and, ordinarily, should be placed on the public record rules of practice, Section 4.7(c). However, although the letter is unsigned, the writer, an employee of respondent, apparently fearing that details are revealed in the letter which would disclose his identity, states his belief that, unless the letter s confidentiality is preserved, he wil lose his job.' Accordingly, It is ordered That the administrative law judge advise counsel of the substance of the communication and that, upon request, counsel be permitted to examine the communication, with instructions that they not disclose any identifying details to respondent or others; It is further ordered That the communication not be considered by the administrative law judge in the decision ofthis case. 1 The Commi "inn do" not !ightly "ssume that advet"e actinn would b.. Taken against an employee whu presented ;nfonnation ineonnedion with an arljuriicative prod'eding 653 Order

← 86 F.T.C. 650 · 86 F.T.C. 653 →