Court Opinion

ID: 9450218
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 16:38:53.669303+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:32:12.137969
License: Public Domain

POPE, Circuit Judge
(concurring).
My concurrence here is induced in part by my feeling that pre-trial discovery is much less important in administrative proceedings than in cases tried in a district court. In the latter cases, once trial is begun the parties would expect the trial to proceed to a conclusion without interruption, and to make their entire case during that time. But with an administrative hearing before an examiner a common procedure is to take testimony at different sittings, often in different cities, and at more or less widely separated intervals. With its subpoena power the Commission can compel the attendance of witnesses who are, or who represent, adverse parties, and upon their examination the Examiner cari readily ascertain what correspondence or other papers are in the possession of the witness. Production of these can be procured for use at subsequent sessions.
I cannot believe that the correspondence sought here cannot be obtained under existing valid procedures.