Exxon Corporation

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

IN THE MATTER OF EXXON CORPORATION, ET AL.

Docket 8984. Interlocutory Order, August 1, 1978 Clarification of Commission’s position in adopting after modification of ALJ’s protective order.

ORDER On January 31, 1977, the Commission adopted, with modification, Paragraph 9 of the protective order issued by the administrative law judge, which paragraph had been certified to the Commission. [89 F.T.C. 107] It has come to the Commission’s attention that certain respondents who are appealing a District Court judgment enforcing the subpoenas issued to them in this matter (FTC v. Anderson, No. T7- 1032 (D.C. Cir.)) have raised on appeal an issue concerning the scope of the protective order as adopted by the Commission. The issue, which they did not raise before the Commission or before the District Court, is whether the Commission has committed itself to give ten days’ notice before disclosing respondents’ “confidential” documents sua sponte or in response to requests not explicitly named in the order, such as requests that are not made pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act.

Paragraph 9 of the administrative law judge’s protective order originally provided:

9. Notwithstanding any of the foregoing provisions, in the event of a Freedom of Information Act request or an official request from any Congressional committee or subcommittee for disclosure of any document designated “Confidential” hereunder or any information contained therein, authorized representatives of the Commission’s Office of General Counsel may inspect the document for purposes of advising the Commission on the request and defending the Commission’s interests in court. Furthermore, the Commission shall provide the party which supplied a confidential. . document with ten (10) days’ notice prior to releasing the document in response to such a request or otherwise. [Emphasis added.] In modifying Paragraph 9 to provide for qualified notice in the event of certain congressional requests or judicial compulsory process, it was the Commission’s intent to affirm and retain the administrative law judge’s language providing an unconditional ten days’ notice before disclosing documents in response to Freedom of Information EXXON CORP., ET AL. 273 272 . Interlocutory Order Act requests “or otherwise.” In other words, in adopting the order the Commission committed itself, as it has on other occasions,' to provide ten days’ notice before disclosing confidential documents sua sponte or in response to requests that do not come within the specified qualifications as to disclosure in response to congressional and judicial requests.

1 See, eg., the protective order issued July 12, 1978, by the Commission in Tenneco, Inc, Dkt. 9097, p. 181 herein.

Complaint: 92 E.T.C.