finding that compliance with summons did not moot appeal when further relief was available from appellate court through order to return subpoenaed documents and to forbid use of documents in ongoing adjudication
How later courts described this case
- finding that compliance with summons did not moot appeal when further relief was available from appellate court through order to return subpoenaed documents and to forbid use of documents in ongoing adjudication
- finding appeal was not moot because a favorable outcome could effect both the return of contested documents and the limitation of their use in future hearings (first citing Atl. Richfield v. FTC, 546 F.2d 646, 650 (5th Cir. 1977); then citing FTC v. Browning, 435 F.2d 96 , 97 n.1 (D.C. Cir. 1970))
- compliance with district court order enforcing FTC subpoena does not moot appeal; court can effectuate relief by requiring FTC to return subpoenaed documents and forbidding FTC from using materials in adjudicatory hearing
- subpoena enforcement not moot following compliance because “relief would be available by an or der requiring the [administrative agency] to return the subpoenaed documents and to forbid use of the material in the adjudicatory hearing”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
ON PETITION FOR REHEARING
PER CURIAM:
The petition for rehearing, which does not challenge the Court’s holding, primarily requests the Court to delete certain words and phrases that might prejudice Gibson. We reiterate that we express no opinion on the merits of the case. None of the language is to be taken as a prejudgment on the merits of the case whether between Gibson and the FTC or between Gibson and other private parties. The comments are principally made to explain the relevance of the subpoenas.
No disparagement is intended of Gibson for having vigorously asserted its contentions that we have examined and overruled.
We do, however, amend the opinion in the first sentence of the second paragraph of footnote nine by deleting the word “this” and substituting “an analogous.” We also delete the last sentence of the opinion which reads: “The five Gibson corporations cannot keep playing hide-and-seek with the FTC.” In all other respects, the petition for rehearing is DENIED.