Industry Group Refiles Motion to Redact Over 15 Words After CAFC Rejection in Conflict-of-Interest Suit
The Coalition of Freight Coupler Producers refiled a motion to waive the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's redaction limits in a conflict-of-interest proceeding after the court rejected an initial bid to waive the requirements. The coalition asked the court for permission to redact 180 unique words, given that the reasons for redaction are rooted in existing judicial orders and the law, "are narrowly tailored toward" three groups of information grounded in the law and the redaction would not "frustrate the public policy regarding confidentiality in proceedings" at the Federal Circuit (Amsted Rail Company 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 coalition added that should its second motion be denied, it is ready to refile its reply brief without redacting the information, which includes the names of certain law firms and attorneys involved in the case.
Judge Evan Wallach rejected the first motion to waive the redaction limits earlier this month, finding that the motion "does not even attempt" to show that the additional markings are needed "pursuant to a statute, administrative regulation, or court rule" (see 2304070028). In its refiled bid, the coalition claimed that the three categories of information for which the group is requesting redaction are personal information about the firm and attorneys involved, information on the nature of the claim and proprietary information linked to the terms of the engagement agreement.
Wallach questioned the coalition's initial motion on the grounds that much of this information was released publicly at the Court of International Trade. The coalition said this information was "inappropriately released," and that the appellants, led by Amsted Rail Co., have failed to designate the information with appropriate redacting in violation of two judicial protective orders from the trade court. The coalition argued the present redaction motion should be granted since these two protective orders have not been modified and all information over ARC's nature of the claim should be redacted.
The case concerns a past ITC injury investigation on freight rail couplers 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 Rein, 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).