CAFC Denies Motion to Redact More Than 15 Words in Conflict-of-Interest Suit
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on April 6 denied a motion from the Coalition of Freight Coupler Producers to waive the court's redaction limits so as to hide the names of certain law firms and attorneys involved in the conflict-of-interest proceeding. Judge Evan Wallach said that the coalition's motion "does not even attempt" to show that the additional markings are needed "pursuant to a statute, administrative regulation, or court rule" (Amsted Rail Co. v. ITC, Fed. Cir. # 23-1355)
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
"The only justification for redacting the information is that it was covered by a protective order in the underlying proceedings," the judge said, finding that reasoning wasn't enough under the appellate court's rules.
The appellants, led by Amsted Rail Co., separately filed for leave to file a joint appendix redacting the names of the concerned law firms and attorneys. Wallach denied Amsted's motion as well, pointing out that while the names of the attorneys and firms are covered under a protective order, the names are unredacted in filings at the proceedings at the International Trade Commission.
The judge said that while material covered by a protective order can be marked confidential in the appendix, material will lose its status as subject to a protective order if and when it is in a filing without being marked confidential.
The case concerns a past ITC injury investigation on freight rail couplers and parts thereof from China and an ongoing injury investigation on the same goods from China and Mexico. ARC, a U.S. producer and importer of freight rail couplers, originally employed Wiley, where Daniel Pickard was a partner at the time, to represent it. After filing a petition for ARC, Pickard moved to Buchanan Ingersoll. Following a negative injury determination in the original ITC case, Pickard filed a new petition naming imports of freight rail couplers from Mexico and China as the source of the injury, knowing ARC had the only imports from Mexico via its maquiladora factory.
CIT dismissed the action for lack of jurisdiction (see 2211160057). The present appeal ensued, in which the coalition sought to redact more than the standard 15 unique words. In denying this motion, the Federal Circuit said the coalition shall file corrected briefs "with either up to 15 unique words redacted or a new motion to waive" the redaction requirements that explains the reasons for each piece of information sought to marked confidential.