Sterling Drug Inc

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

IN THE MA TIERS OF BRISTOL-MYERS COMPANY, ET AL. D. 8917 AMERICAN HOME PRODUCTS CORPORATION, ET AL. D. 8918 STERLING DRUG INC., ET AL. D. 8919 Dokets 8917. 8918, 8919. Interlocutory Order. Aug. 23, 1977 Order denying motion of complaint counsel for interlocutory review of ruling of Administrative Law Judge which granted respondents access to two reports of intervews with one of respondents' witnesses. ORDER DENYING Application FOR INTERLOCUTORY Appeal Complaint counsel in these three proceedings apply for interlocutory review of the Administrative Law Judge s ruling granting access, in connection with a joint hearing to take testimony applicable to each case, to two reports, prepared by complaint counsel, of interviews with one of their witnesses. The application follows a ruling dated August 2, 1977, by the Administrative Law Judge determining that the question involved meets the standards for interlocutory review set out in Section 3.23(b) of our Rules of Practice. This application for review was the subject of an earlier motion, filed July 29, 1977, entitled "Motion For Extension Of Time In Which To File Application For Interlocutory Appeal Under Section 23(a)(I). It was urged that the Administrative Law Judge s order required the disclosure of Commission records," in the terms of that portion of the Rule; and that characterization seems unassailable on the basis of the facts before us. We denied that motion because the only ground urged for an extension was complaint counsel' s desire to seek appeal simultaneously under both subsection (a)(l) and subsection (b). We held that such a procedure:

would make a nullty of the 5-day time limit contained in subsection (a). Similarly as asituat applicants could always seek subsection (b) certification as well subsection (a) appeal, thereby avoiding the time constraint. Because the time limitation serves the important purpose of reinforcing the ALJ's control over the orderly progress of adjudicative hearings, we cannot countenance such a result. This consideration applies with equal force to the present motion. Complaint counsel could have made application for review of the order in question under Section 3.23(a)(I), within the five-day period prescribed thereunder. They did not. We cannot now countenance the 150 Interlocutory Order circumvention of that time limit by granting an application under Section 3.23(b) for review of the same order. It is therefore ordered, That the motion is denied. Complaint 90 F.