Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Federal Trade Commission v. Response Makers

November 19, 2010

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, PETITIONER,
v.
RESPONSE MAKERS, LLC, RESPONDENT.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hayes, Judge

ORDER

The matter before the Court is the Report and Recommendation for Order Requiring Respondent to Fully Comply with Petitioner's Civil Investigative Demand ("Report and Recommendation"), issued by Magistrate Judge Barbara L. Major. (ECF No. 10).

BACKGROUND

On August 24, 2010, Petitioner Federal Trade Commission initiated this action by filing a "Petition of the Federal Trade Commission for an Order to Enforce a Civil Investigative Demand" ("Petition"). (ECF No. 1). Petitioner seeks to enforce an administrative subpoena against Respondent, Response Makers, LLC, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §§ 56 and 57b-1, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1337 and 1345, and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 81(a)(5). Petitioner states that on July 28, 2010, it served a civil investigative demand on Respondent, which directed Respondent to submit the response materials by August 4, 2010. Petitioner states that Respondent failed to submit responses by the deadline or to object or petition the Petitioner to quash or limit the civil investigative demand, as provided in 16 C.F.R. § 2.7(d)(1).

On August 31, 2010, the Magistrate Judge issued an Order to Show Cause Why Respondent Should Not Fully Comply with Petitioner's Civil Investigative Demand. (ECF No. 7). The Order to Show Cause required Respondent to appear for a hearing on September 30, 2010 and to file, on or before September 16, 2010, "a brief providing legal and factual support for its failure to comply with the FTC's civil investigative demand and/or the FTC's procedures for seeking to quash or limit the civil investigative demand and explaining why this Order To Show Cause should not be granted." Id. at 2.

On September 9, 2010, Petitioner filed a Declaration of Service, indicating that, on September 3, 2010, Respondent was personally served with the Order to Show Cause and the Petition. (ECF No. 8).

The docket reflects that Respondent failed to respond to the Order to Show Cause and failed to appear for the September 30, 2010 hearing before the Magistrate Judge.

On October 5, 2010, the Magistrate Judge issued the Report and Recommendation. (ECF No. 10). The Magistrate Judge stated:

IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that the District Judge issue an order:

(1) approving and adopting this Report and Recommendation, and (2) ordering Respondent Response Makers, LLC to comply in full with Petitioner's civil investigative demand and produce to Petitioner, within ten days of the date of the District Judge's final order, all responsive documents and information in compliance with the civil investigative demand....

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that no later than October 29, 2010, any party to this action may file written objections with the Court and serve a copy on all parties....

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that any reply to the objections shall be filed with the Court and served on all parties no later that November 5, 2010. The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to raise those objections on appeal of the Court's order. Id. at 2-3 (citation omitted).

On October 15, 2010, Petitioner filed a Declaration of Service, indicating that Respondent was personally served with the Report and ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.