*1 counsel, Thai Teak N.Y.1977); Corp. cf. v. pie’s joint finances. On advice of Strick 1210, 1217-18 however, Co., F.Supp. questions she refused to answer Products involved, are concerning Appel- spouses her individual finances. Where (E.D.Pa.1980). had been a thereupon compel- showing lant moved for an order that there slight even a her ling testify regarding personal spouse her to from the debtor property transfer of sought imposition finances and of sanc- to estab- could suffice spouse to the other tions. Here should be allowed. discovery lish that showing. there was no
In court denied March motions ground appellant the motion on case the motions the instant showing had failed to make a sufficient which was condi discovery, court’s denial of any that appellee actually had transferred executing upon tioned Mrs. Frishman’s funds to Mrs. Frishman. The denial husband had denying affidavit that her executing conditioned Mrs. Frishman’s her, a rea assets to struck any transferred stating an affidavit that she had received balance between the sometimes sonable Frishman no funds from her husband. Mrs. 69— that underlie Rule policies competing appel- executed the affidavit. Thereafter judgment cred 1(a). The court-allowed he chal- appeal, lant noted this in which assets, into his debtor’s discovery itor broad lenges ruling requests the trial court’s from party while the third protecting costs. interroga unduly harassment and intrusive argues the over Appellant that it did not abuse tion. We are satisfied whelming weight supports authority ruling. its discretion in so judgment creditor’s to discover hidden Affirmed. through or concealed assets of his debtor discovery parties. proposition of third This
is true as stated but overlooks a critical
distinction that has been drawn between
asking a third as party about debtor’s
sets, asking party third about his own Generally may
assets. creditors speaking, into the
inquire party’s knowledge third finances, may the debtor’s but not delve Petitioner, STATES, UNITED into the third finances. party’s personal See, Scott, 775, 776 e.g., Burak v. 29 F.Supp. Wright (D.D.C.1939); 12 Miller, A. C. & COMMISSION OF PUBLIC SERVICE COLUMBIA, Federal Practice Procedure OF DISTRICT (1973 at 72 Supp.). & n. 51 & 1982 Respondent, recognized excep that have Cases Telephone Chesapeake Potomac general tions to the rule stated above have People’s Company, Office of involved, bar, unlike the case at factual Counsel, Intervenors. appeared circumstances in which it No. 82-988. judgment transfer of assets from the some actually the third had oc party debtor to Appeals. Court of Columbia cases, curred. In such courts have allowed Nov. Argued third assets when discovery party’s the re the creditor could demonstrate Aug. Decided creditor and the lationship between the was such as to raise reasonable debtor faith of the transfer. good
doubts as to
See, Is Magnaleasing, Inc. v. Staten e.g., Mall, Inc., (S.D.
land 76 F.R.D. *2 Justice, million dollars. We Cole, rate increase Atty., Dept, $40.3 William G. D.C., E. claims and affirm Washington, reject petitioner’s with whom Stuart Gen., Schiffer, Stanley challenged on all Deputy Atty. Asst. orders of PSC Harris, and Lawrence A.G. Atty., grounds. S. Justice, Wash-
Moloney, Atty., Dept, *3 D.C., briefs, ington, petitioner. were on for FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY D.C., Moore, Jr., Lloyd Washington, N. for an P filed its application When C & respondent. for rates, and interve- parties increase in all Stroud, whom, D. Michael with Wash- GSA, nors, agreed the of exception with D.C., Satterfield, J. ington, Lee A. Mark the portion the revenue of a settlement of Mathis, Levetown, and Robert A. Wash- numerous case, understanding the with intervenor, D.C., briefs, for ington, were on tried while the rate issues would be design The Chesapeake Telephone and Potomac joint A rate increase went into effect. pro- of the settlement approval motion for 1982, 17, just on March posal was filed D.C., Sharlitt, Joseph Washington, N. scheduled events were following before the Counsel, Lederer, People’s with whom Brian filing of initial place: to have taken Noel, Deputy People’s and Elizabeth Coun- of re- testimony; expert expert sel, D.C., briefs, were on Washington, hearings to include testimony; buttal intervenor, People’s Counsel. inter- company of all cross-examination TERRY, Before Associate PRYOR and their testimo- pre-filed venor witnesses on BARNES, Judge, Judges, and Associate Su- objection then filed a written ny. GSA of the perior Court Columbia.1 contending that a proposal, the settlement explore hearing necessary was trial-type PRYOR, Judge: Associate issues. disputed 12,1981, the & Chesapeake On November of cross-examina- hearing A with (hereinafter Telephone Company Potomac tion of all witnesses was not afford- expert P) C & filed an with the Public However, a was held ed to GSA. Service Commission of the District of Co- 6, 1981, which each intervenor at (hereinafter Commission), lumbia PSC one witness present 777, Formal designated requesting Case No. joint approval as to whether testify permanent authority to increase its sched- inter- public settlement motion was in the ule of rates and service telephone tariffs published thereafter est. The Commission in the District of Columbia million $132.1 & P a rate granting No. C Final Order dollars. The Counsel was authoriz- People’s dollars, less than increase million of $40.3 represent ed to the consumers of the Dis- The final request. original one third of its Columbia; right, trict of as a matter of and inter- parties was approved order however, granted intervention was to the GSA, and rate venors, exception with Administra- United General Services States begin were scheduled to design hearings GSA) (hereinafter tion PSC Order No. immediately. from a settlement appeals 7459.2 GSA Final No. appeals from Order by the Commission agreement approved 7603, which GSA’s & P a and from Order objection granted over its C Broadcasting Companies; Tele- Sitting by designation pursuant American MCI to D.C.Code 1. ll-707(a) Corporation; and United communications Throughout Systems. Transmission States granted Intervention was also Commit- court, this briefs submitted to record and Rates; Equitable Telephone the D.C. tee for “party,” loosely how- to as a has been referred Committee; Answering Telephone Service ever, below that its status the record indicates Building Apartment Association & Office an intervenor. Security Concepts, Washington; Metropolitan Inc.; Washington; the Hotel Association application for reconsideration of the reve- People’s also v. Public See Counsel Commission, nue requirements (D.C. order was denied. Service 455 A.2d 1982), citing v. Public Goodman Service SCOPE OF REVIEW Commission, (D.C.1973). 309 A.2d contentions, In analyzing GSA’s we realize that Congress delegated rate- I. Commission, making authority to the not to presented The central issues court, and we therefore accord great are whether the Public Com appeal Service expertise deference to the and decisions of mission can authorize nonunanimous set Washington Light Commission. tlement, and, so, procedures if what it must Co. v. Public A.2d within spirit follow to remain (D.C.1982) (per curiam). We (codi D.C. Administrative Procedure Act have stated that review of repeatedly “[o]ur *4 (1981)). fied This at D.C.Code § a commission order is utility the narrowest recognized court has that
judicial review in the field of administrative
to
flexibility
has both the
consider settle
Id.,
law.”
Potomac Electric
citing
Power
ment offers and the
to evalu
responsibility
Commission,
Co. v. Public Service
402 A.2d
light
ate such offers “on their merits in
of
14, 17 (D.C.) (en banc),
denied,
cert.
444 U.S.
of
if
proposed
the evidence
record even
926,
265,
(1979).
100
Rate-making
presump
valid, and,
as a settlement
tively
carry
certainly
adopted
unless
can
its
be
GSA
general
“fa
if
in the
heavy
demonstrating
agreement
approved
burden of
that a
taken,
if there is
public.
Final
terest of the
But even
tal flaw” exists in the action
unanimity, may
adopted
it
be
Orders Nos. 7546 and 7603 will not be dis
a lack
merits,
if ...
Light
turbed.
v. Pub
a resolution on
Washington Gas
Co.
[the
an
find-
Commission,
independent
A.2d at
makes
supra,
lic
450
Commission]
intervenor,
evidence on
1982. As an
GSA
ing supported by
April
‘substantial
testify
have one witness
proposal
the record as a whole’
joint
settlement
approval
whether
‘just
will establish
and reasonable rates’
interest.4 In addi-
public
motion was in the
for the area.” Mobil Oil Co. v. Federal
op-
were afforded the
tion,
Commission,
participants
at 314
supra,
Power
supple-
pre-filed
to submit
portunity
Placid Oil
2348], citing
S.Ct. at
[94
discovery.
testimony and to conduct
mental
Commission, supra,
Power
Federal
original.)3
(Emphasis
F.2d at
objections
proposed
raised its
again
hearing,
time of the
order at the
instance,
The
in this
did
for reconsidera-
application
when it filed an
independent
inquiry
make the
requisite
April
order. At the
proposed
tion of the
6, 1981,
record,
hearing
at its
explore
“what
hearing,
sought
proposal
determine whether the settlement
large
disputed
to be a
number of
believed
contends
public
was in the
interest. GSA
concerning depreciation, repression,
issues”
hearing
inadequate
that the
and failed
It was not until
and rate of return.
statute.
comply with
local
for reconsideration
There is no
in the District
question
agreement
settlement
approved
of Columbia an
for a rate in-
specific
issues for considera-
identified
public
crease
that a
utility requires
tion.
hearing be held before the Commission.
appli-
found that GSA’s
The Commission
statutory requirement
*5
did not
present
cation for reconsideration
l-1509(b)
can
found in
be
D.C.Code §
sufficient to warrant a full
dispute
factual
(1981)
provides
“[e]very party
witness had
evidentiary hearing. GSA’s
the
to
in
or
right
present
person
shall have
issues,
on two of the same
rate
testified
by
by
counsel his
case or defense
[or her]
offered
depreciation,
return and
GSA
evidence, to
documentary
oral and
submit
Another
hearing.
for a second
as a basis
evidence,
rebuttal
and to conduct such
application, repression,
ground for GSA’s
be
for a
may
required
cross-examination
P as
by
part
was withdrawn
C &
(Em-
full and true disclosure of the facts.”
settlement discussions.
phasis added.)
also D.C.Code
43-
See
§§
608, -601(d) (1981).
in-
the rate
testimony opposing
GSA’s
was
objections
outlined its
fully
crease
Although
given
was
the
GSA
so that cross-ex-
comprehensive
sufficiently
hearing,
at
participate
April
the
would not have further
by
amination
that it
the
argues
opportunity
was denied
Moreover,
the issues.
elucidated
who
thirty-three
to cross-examine
witnesses
to accom-
hoped
what it
yet to enunciate
pre-filed testimony,
had submitted
allowed further
had the Commission
plish
the re
thereby ignored
its submitted list of
cross-examination on
While
quirements
hearing.”
a “formal
issues.”
major
“unresolved
to cross-examine wit
opportunity
GSA’s
an inter-
rights afforded
procedural
limited,
have been
some cross-
may
nesses
been
have
rate-making proceedings
venor in
bifurcated
permitted.
examination was
A
Court:
Supreme
the
described
only the issues
proceeding concerning
were admitted as
petitioners
If the
in the
requirements,
presented
revenue
course,
be
they might,
...
held,
rate de
tervenors
was
proposal,
settlement
proeeed-
in the
participation
begin
admitted
hearings were scheduled
sign
challenge
only party seeking
Corp.
suggests
is the
that Mobile Oil
4. GSA
3. Petitioner
inapposite
in
procedures
here
the
followed
Commission
Federal Power Commission
the
sub-
in that case was
because the settlement
Formal Case
record
after an “immense administrative
mitted
petition-
compiled.” We do not find
had been
persuasive.
argument
to be
er’s
terms;
long
and one of
the
as the Commission
ing
application
reasonable
so
delay
rules is that an
procedural
applicant
the most usual
the
of its intent to
notified
the proceeding
intervenor is admitted to
it was
The court found that
consideration.
stands,
pending
and in
respect
as it
Congress
would have intended
unlikely
issues,
enlarge
but
is not
giving
the Commission “from
prevent
the
compel
those issues or
an alteration of
and mature consideration to
careful
It would
proceeding....
nature of the
set
clashing, arguments
often
multiple, and
of clear
seem then that
in the absence
rehearing
complex
in
applications
out in
to the
legislative
contrary,
mandate
We see
as this
Id. at 72.
cases such
one.”
greater
not
petitioners
possess
should
allow the Public Service
no reason not to
than other intervenors.
rights
extended time for
the same
Commission
Co.,
Washington
Vinson v.
ap-
consideration of
reasoned and deliberate
731, 735,
it thirty-three prefiled who had witnesses it
their and even in this court testimony, (or proffered
has not done so. If it had
filed) any testimony the issues which unresolved, might well
now claims were
be a case. different
I II court’s agree opin- with Part
ion. DRESSER, Appellant,
Darrell A.
SUNDERLAND APARTMENTS ASSOCIATION,
TENANTS
INC., al., Appellees. et
No. 82-252. Appeals. Columbia Court Jan.
Argued Aug. 22,
Decided