data relating to any subject under investigation * * *'
and further provide that 'Any person required * * * to submit documentary evidence shall be entitled to retain or, on payment of lawfully prescribed cost, procure a copy of any document produced by such person * * *' The subpoena involved in this case authorized the production of copies in lieu of originals. We have examined the cases cited by the Commission and those cited by the respondents in their brief. We are unable to determine any clear rational or standard which meets this precise situation, but the underlying principle is one of 'reasonableness.' While the Act does not specifically authorize the agents of the Commission to take into custody the documents for reproduction, examination or appraisal, nor does it specifically say that they may remove them from the place of production to some other locale, nevertheless, it would seem to us that the very purpose of the Act would be thwarted if some reasonable method of examination was not available to the Commission. On the other hand, it is perfectly obvious to us that on the slightest provocation the Commission could disrput and disorganize a business under investigation by taking out of its control and possession the documents which it requires in its daily business operations.
In the light of these conclusions we have examined and re-examined the entire record and are totally unable to determine from it that the business corporations herein involved would in the slightest degree be hindered in their normal operations by the production and turning over of the various documents contained in the specifications attached to the subpoenas. As a matter of fact, it appears throughout the testimony adduced at the hearing before the Examiner that a great many of the documents which were requested were either not available, were not used in their business, or were of no important probative value. We will accordingly enter an Order, but point out that if it is brought to the attention of the Court that any serious hindrance to respondents' business will be caused by adherence to the provisions of the Order, we will reconsider it as to those specific instances.
We make reference to one other matter. Standard American Construction Company, Inc. did not appear in response to the subpoena served upon it. The proof is so clear and unequivocal that this corporation has been doing business at the address of service and that the service of the subpoena as made by the representatives of the Commission was proper that we will not comment further upon it. Suffice it to say, the Order which we are about to enter will apply equally to all of the five corporate respondents and that while Standard American Construction Company, Inc. did not appear in answer to the subpoena, its failure to abide by the terms of this Order will be the subject of further action by the Cout.
And now, to wit, this 21st day of July, 1961, Standard American Inc., Standard American Construction Company, Inc., Mansville Construction, Inc., Val Worth Enterprises, Inc., and Wolf, Dorleg and Wolf, Inc., are each Ordered to produce the documentary evidence requested in the subpoena duces tecum before an Examiner or other authorized representative of the Federal Trade Commission within thirty (30) days from this date at a time and place to be fixed by the Commission.
Upon production, the Commission may take into their custody copies or originals of the documents subpoenaed and remove the same to Washington, D.C., for a period not in excess of thirty (30) days, after which they shall be immediately returned to the respondents unless application upon good cause shown is made to the Court.
It is Further Ordered And Decreed that the respondents, by their duly authorized representatives, shall appear and testifiy to any matters not covered by the testimony heretofore taken within thrity (30) days from this date at such time and place in the City of Philadelphia as may be fixed by the duly authorized representatives of the Commission to determine whether or not the corporate respondents are involved in acts practices in a manner which violates Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act.
© 1992-2004 VersusLaw Inc.