Appeal of P.S. Docket No. 6/77 -- THE DOCTOR'S DIET PLAN


 In the Matter of the Complaint Against

 THE DOCTOR'S DIET PLAN
 Box 1344 at
 Hallandale, Florida 33009

 P.S. Docket No. 6/77;  
 
 10/23/78
 
 Cohen, James A.

ORDER AND

POSTAL SERVICE DECISION

In an order dated October 13, 1978, Respondent's motion for an extension of the appeal period was denied. By motion dated October 13, 1978, received on October 16, 1978, Respondent seeks a further extension of the time within which the appeal may be filed. Respondent also has filed a letter dated October 12, 1978, received on October 16, 1978, which presents arguments in support of the motion to extend the appeal period.

The arguments presented in the letter dated October 12, 1978, and the motion dated October 13, 1978, for the most part were considered in connection with the order of October 13, 1978. The principal additional argument now presented relates to the agreement of the Postal Service to release the names of persons who have filed complaints concerning Everywoman's Water Pill. According to Respondent since the Postal Service has agreed to the release of the names of complaining persons in the Everywoman's Water Pill case, it must release the same information with respect to this case. Consequently the appeal period should be extended so that Respondent will have an opportunity to examine that information prior to filing an appeal.

I am not persuaded that the names of persons filing complaints in this proceeding, assuming that complaints were filed, are relevant and material or that the failure of Respondent to have these names in any way prevented it from filing its appeal within the appeal period as previously extended. Thus the agreement of the Postal Service to release names of persons filing complaints in another proceeding does not establish an appropriate basis for extending the appeal period in this proceeding.

The additional arguments presented by Respondent in support of its request for an extension of the appeal period have also been considered. For the reasons stated herein, as well as the reasons stated in the order of October 13, 1978, I conclude that good cause has not been shown for an extension of the appeal period. Accordingly Respondent's motion is denied.

Since it may not be clear from the record, it should be pointed out that Respondent has been advised in several telephone conversations, initiated by Mr. Heim representing Respondent, that if Respondent desired to have the Initial Decision reviewed by the Judicial Officer it should file its appeal and the Judicial Officer would consider the arguments raised on appeal. Respondent has not seen fit to file an appeal, but rather has continually requested extensions of the appeal period. Respondent's actions evidence an intent to delay, not an intent to file an appeal.

The motion for extension having been denied and the appeal period having expired, the Initial Decision, holding that an order under 39 U.S.C. § 3005 should issue in the captioned matter, is now the Postal Service Decision as provided in § 952.24(a) of the applicable Rules of Practice (39 C.F.R. § 952.24(a)).