court that it would be a “waste of judicial resources to require the FERC to issue its own subpoena to McGraw-Hill, to compel production of the same documents, based upon the [sic] essentially the same set of facts.” Id. at 21. As a compromise, the Commission proposes that if another agency should request the documents from the Commission, the court could conduct an ex parte, in camera review of that agency’s need for the information and its exhaustion of alternative sources. App.’s Mot. at 23. McGraw-Hill retorts that if any other agency wants the requested documents, it can request them itself, rather than obtaining them extra-judicially through the Commission. Resp.’s Reply at 6. The Commission’s position is without precedent in this jurisdiction. See, e.g., Carey, 492 F.2d at 636 (<HOLDING>) (quoting Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665,
holding that perjury is not a permissible way of objecting to the governments questions holding that whether actual harm to students or school must be shown or whether inference of unfitness to teach can be inferred from the conduct will be decided on a casebycase basis holding in a successor liability case that questions of traditional tort law unrelated to the contract were properly governed under forum law holding that a trial court need not perform a 403 balancing test on the record holding that the balancing test should be conducted on a casebycase basis in accord  with the tried and traditional way of adjudicating such questions