Kellogg Company

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

IN THE MATTER OF KELLOGG COMPANY, F T AI,.

LJocket 888.'. Order, Nov. , 1975 Dcnial of (1) complaint counsel's application for review of administrative law judge order setting a schellule for pretrial briefing and trial in this matter, and (2) administrative law judge s order denying motion for reconsideration. Dismissing as moot complaint counsel's petition for stay of action by Commission on administrat.ive law judge s report and orders of Oct. 14, 1975. Appearances For the Commission: Robert B. Greenbaum and Steven A. Newborn. ORDER DENYING Application BY COMPLAINT COUNSEL FOR RI.;vmw OF THE SUBSTITUTE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE ORDERS AND DISMISSING PETITION FOR STAY This matter is before the Commission upon an uncertified application for review.

On Oct. 22, 1975, Administrative Law Judge Joseph P. Dufresne denied complaint counsel's motion that he reconsider and amend his order of Oct. 14, 1975, setting a schedule for pretrial briefing and trial in this matter. The law judge s order, setting ,Jan. 26, 1976 as the date for the commencement of hearings on complaint counsel's case, was issued pursuant to the Commission s orders of Sept. 16, 1975, and Sept. , 1975, requiring that the law judge, after consultation with the parties, promptly establish a schedule for trial and certify to the Commission a status report on this matter.

The law judge has also declined to make a determination that his rulings are appropriate for interlocutory review under Section 3.23(b) of the rules of practice.

Complaint counsel have now applied for review of the law judge orders of Oct. 14, 1975, and Oct. 22, 1975. They contend that the judge failure to determine that this matter is appropriate for review under Section 3.23(b) was a clear abuse of discretion and that the rulings setting a briefing and trial schedule were likewise abuses of discretion. Complaint counsel ask that the scheduling of this matter be returned to the discretion of Judge Hinkes to set a schedule consistent with the record, the needs of the parties, and the interests of the public in a proper resolution of this important matter. If the Commission . Fnradditi,malappearances"ppp_ fi:,l) her,-in , Judge Dufresne wus d,'signated Lo substitute for HaTTY R. !linkes, the law judge lo whum this matter Was "s."signed, who wa." r!',!uired t" b(. abs('nt from the Crlmm;s,;"" ror peroonal reasons 1196 Fr;DJ.RAL TRADr; COMMISSION Dr;CISIONS Complaint 86 F.

decides that it wil itself set the schedule, complaint counsel recommend a trial date of Apr. 5, 1976, as originally proposed by the substitute judge and accepted by all parties.

We cannot conclude, from the record before us, that Judge Dufresne abused his discretion in making any of the determinations challenged by complaint counsel. However, the law judge retains discretion to modify the trial schedule for good cause. Accordingly, It is ordered That the aforesaid application for review be, and it hereby is, denied;

It is further ordered That the petition by complaint counsel for stay of any action by the Commission on Judge Dufresne s report and orders of Oct. 14, 1975, be, and it hereby is, dismissed as moot.