Sunkist Growers, Inc

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

IN THE MATTER OF SUNKIST GROWERS, INC.

Docket 9100. Interlocutory Order, Nov. 17, 1978 ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR REIMBURSEMENT OF REPRODUCTION EXPENSES The administrative law judge has certified to the Commission respondent’s request for payment of costs incurred pursuant to reproduction of documents produced in response to a subpoena duces tecum issued on February 17, 1978. That subpoena called for production of certain documents in Sunkist’s possession for inspection and copying by complaint counsel. Return of the subpoena was ordered to be made in Los Angeles and Sunkist apparently offered to undertake the photocopying of those documents identified by complaint counsel. There is some dispute, however, over whether or not complaint counsel offered to reimburse respondent for its efforts. Sunkist contends that complaint counsel agreed that Sunkist was to be reimbursed for the copying and that $.10 per page was a reasonable charge.! Complaint counsel affies that he agreed only that it was reasonable for Sunkist to request reimbursement of reproduction expenses from the Commission, and that he made clear to Sunkist’s counsel that only the Commission could authorize reimbursement.

The Commission Rules make no provision for payment of reproduction expenses incurred by a respondent in connection with a Commission proceeding. Moreover, service contracts involving the expenditure of agency funds must be executed by an individual possessing authority to enter into a contract on behalf of the Commission.? Thus, assuming arguendo that complaint counsel did enter into an otherwise proper contract with respondent’s counsel, the law is clear that the Commission is not bound by the unauthorized acts of its employees.? Accordingly, It is ordered, That respondent’s motion is denied. ' It appears from the affidavit filed by respondent's counsel that Sunkist first suggested that the copying be done on its facilities and that complaint counsel agreed with this suggestion. 2 Under Federal Procurement Regulation § 1.404-2, 41 C.F.R. 1.404-2 (1977), each agency designates its contracting officials. See The Federal Trade Commission Procurement and Contracting Guidelines, June, 1978. 3 Federal Crop Ins. Corp. v. Merrill, 332 U.S. 380, 384 (1947) (‘Whatever the form in which the Government functions, anyone entering into an arrangement with the Government takes the risk of having accurately ascertained that he who purports to act for the Government stays within the bounds of his authority.”; Albrechtsen v. Andrus, 570 F.2d 906 (10th Cir, 1978)). Interlocutory Order 92 F.T.C.