Page 1 

Commodity Futures Trading Commission 

CEA CASES 

NAME: EDWARD A. COX JR. AND GEORGE F. FREY JR. 

CITATION: Comm. Fut. L. Rep. (CCH) P21,809; [1982-1984 TRANSFER BINDER] 

DOCKET NUMBER: 75-16; 192 

DATE: JULY 20, 1983 

DOCUMENT TYPE: ORDER 

NOTE: FORMERLY CEA DOCKET # 192 

[P 21,809] In the Matter of Cox.

Commodity Futures Trading Commission. No. 75-16, July 20, 1983. Order in 

full text. 

Rules of Practice -- Filings -- Excessive Page Length. -- The Commission 

limited the size of appeal briefs in an enforcement case to 100 pages or less. 

This was an ordered reduction in length from the 120 page appeal briefs 

originally filed. The Commission increased the length from 60 to 100 in 

consideration of the length of the initial decision, number of issues presented 

and the volume of the record. 

See P 11,175, "Liabilities -- Prohibitions" division, Volume 1. 

This enforcement case involving allegations of market manipulation comes 

before the Commission on the Division of Enforcement's ("Division") motion to 

strike the appeal brief of each respondent, and respondents' individual 

responses and motions for leave to file a brief in excess of 60 pages. n1 As 

submitted, each respondent's brief is over twice the page limitation set forth 

in Section 10.12(e)(5) of the Commission's Regulations. Both briefs contain 

extensive factual statements and extensive quotation from the hearing 

transcripts. n2 In view of the length of the initial decision, the number of 

issues presented, and the volume of the record, we believe some relaxation of 

the page limitation is appropriate, compare In the Matter of First National 

Monetary Corp., and Monex International, Ltd., CFTC Docket Nos. 79-56, 79-57, 

Commission Order (June 15, 1983), n3 but respondents' briefs are simply 

excessive. 

n1 Respondents have each filed a request for oral argument and the 

Division has filed an opposition to those requests. Respondent Cox has 

also filed a motion for leave to file a reply brief. The requests and the 

motion are denied without prejudice to their being renewed after the 

Division has filed its answering brief. The Commission looks with disfavor 

on the filing of a document not in accordance with the Rules of Practice 

either before or at the same time a motion for leave to file is submitted. 

n2 The parties are free to allocate the space allowed in the manner they 

see fit, but from the Commission's perspective citation to pages of the 

transcript that support a party's argument is sufficient. 

n3 In that decision we stated: 

The Commission believes that the page limitation established by Section 

10.12(e)(5) is, in general, more than adequate for a party to state 

concisely its position for the Commission. Motions for leave to file a 

brief in excess of the page limitation are not favored and will be granted 

only for extraordinary and compelling reasons. Cf. General Rule 8(h). 

United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. 
Page 2 

Accordingly, based upon the submissions of the parties and the record of this 

proceeding, the Division's motion to strike respondent Cox's brief and 

respondent Frey's brief is granted. Respondents shall have 30 days from the 

date this Order is served by the Hearing Clerk to submit appeal briefs of 100 

pages or less. The Division shall have 30 days thereafter to submit an 

answering brief of 100 pages or less. Each party shall then have 30 days to 

submit additional motions or requests for Commission consideration. 

By the Commission (Acting Chairman PHILLIPS and Commissioners HINEMAN and 

WEST) 

LOAD-DATE: August 6, 2008 
Page 3