Slip Op 07 - 123



## UNI TED STATES COU

RT OF INTERNATIO

NAL TRADE

: DI AMOND SAWBLADES : MANUF ACTURERS C OAL I TI ON, : : Plaintiff, :

: v . : B e fo re : M USG RA VE , Judge : Court No. 06-00247 UN I TE D ST AT ES, : : De fe nd ant, :

: an d : : ST. GOBA I

N AB RASI VES, I

NC., EHWA : DI AMOND I

NDUSTRI AL

CO., L TD., and : SHI NHAN D I AMOND I

NDUS. CO., L TD., :

: De fe nd ant- I nte rv e no rs . : : M EM OR

AN DU M OP IN ION AN D O RD ER [On de fe nd ant’ s mo tio n to str ike tw o atta c hme nts to pla int if f’ s re ply br ie f o n p la int if

f’ s U SCI T Ru le 56.2 motion for judgme nt on an a d minist rative r ecor d compiled by the U.S. I nternational Trade Commi ssion, moti on to strike denied.] Dated: August 9, 2007 W ile y , R e in & Fi e ldi ng LLP ( Da nie l B . P ic k

ar d ), for the plaintiff. Jame s M. Lyons , Gene ral Counsel, Neal J. Rey nolds , Assistant Gener al Counsel, Offic e of the Gene ral Council, U. S

. I nternational Trade Commi ssion ( Charles A. St. Charl es ) for the de fe nd ant. Ak in G um p S tra us s H au e r &Fe ld L

LP ( Sp e nc e r S

. S mi th , J

. D a v i d P a rk , Ja r r o d

M. Goldfeder , and Lisa W

. R os s ), counsel for the defe ndant-interve nors Ehwa Diamond I ndustrial Co., L td. and Shinhan Diamond I ndustrial Co., L td.Court No. 06-00247 Pag e 2

To wit: “Reply

briefs in a ll cases sha ll not ex cee d 15 pag es. These lim i t at i o n s do not 1 inc lud e Ap pe nd ic e s and

Ta ble s o f Auth or iti e s and

Con te nts . N o b ri ef wh ic h e xce e ds the se re qu ir e me nts may

be fi le d w ith ou t pr ior wr itt e n a pp ro va l of the Court , le a ve fo r wh ic h sh a ll be fr e e ly g iven u p o n g o o d c a u s e s h o w n . ” Ch a mb e r s Pr o c e d u r e 2 ( B ) ( a v a il a b le at www.c it.uscourts.g ov/Rules/new-rules- forms.htm, last visit ed Aug1, 2007). Sandler, Travis & Rosenburg, P.A. ( Thomas V. Vakerics , Leonard M. Shambon , and Krist en S. Sm ith ), counsel, a

nd W ilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr, LLP ( Lynn M. Fische r Fox ), of counsel, for

the def endant- intervenor

Saint-Gobain Abra sives, I nc. On a USCI T Rule 56.2 motion for judgme nt on the neg ative mater ial injury deter mination by the U.S. I nternational Trade Commi ssion (“I TC” or “Commissi on”) on its antidumpi ng petition, the plaintiff Diam o n d

S aw b l ad es ’ M an u fa ct u re r’ s C o al i t i o n(“ DS M C ”) fi l eda r ep ly brief e mbody

ing 15 pa g e s o f t e xt plu s two a tta c hme nts of su mma ry data and fu rt he r n arr a tiv e of

se ve n p a g e s in

tot a l. A w e i g h t y a

p p e n d i x t o t h e b r i e f

w a s a l s o f

i l e d s e p ar a t e l y. The Commission and the defe ndant-interve nors St. Goba in Abrasives, Inc., Ehwa Diamond I ndu s t ri al C o., L td., and Shinhan Diamond I ndus. Co., L td. have jointly moved to strike the two

a t t a c h m e n t s t o D S M C ’ s r e p l y b r i e f an d a l l r e f e r e n c e s t h e r e i n t o t h e d a t a t h e a t t a c h m e n t s e mb o dy. The g rounds for the motion to s trike ar e, that the reply brief was filed w ithout leave to exceed the Court’ s st and ard

po lic y fo r r e ply br ie fs , that th e se ve n p a g e s o f atta c hme nts do no t c on sti tut e

1 permissib le “ A p p e n d ic e s an d T a b le s o f A u th o r it ie s o r

Co n te n ts , ” th a t D SM C d id n o t r e qu e s t t

he Court’ s p r io r

a p p r o v a l i no r d e r

to e xc e e d

c h a mb e r ’ s s ta

n d ar d 1 5 p a g e li mi t, an d

th a t t h e s e v en additional pag es per

tain to argument that the Commiss ion should have per form ed t h e li mited competition analy sis on a volume basis rathe r than on a value basis, which, the joint mot ion to strike argues, is a matter

that DSMC did not raise in its Rule 56.2 motion. I n the alter native, if the joint mot ion to str ike is no t g ra nte d, the Com mis sio n a

nd the de fe nd ant- int e rv e no rs re qu e st the a bil ity toCourt No. 06-00247 Pag e 3

respond to what they

char acte rize as new matter pre sented by the two attac hments. Se e ge ne ra lly Motion to S trike at 1-3. DSMC opposes the motion to strike and responds that its reply brief is within the Court’s 15- pag e limitation, was filed in g ood faith, and is base d upon its e x perie nce in pr ior case s where such

a tta c hme nts have no t be e n c ha lle ng e d a nd have be e n p e rmit ted by

the Court

wi tho ut c omm e nt. DS M C ’s R es p o n s e to M o t i o nt o S t ri k e a t2 (r ef er en ci n g Reply Brief of Plaint iff Habas Sinai ve Tibbi Ga zla r I sti hs al E nd us tri si A .S . I n S up po rt o f M oti on for Jud

gme nt Up on theAge nc

yRe c or d Pursuant to Rule 56.2 , Court No. 05-00613 (Aug. 7, 2006)). DSMC contends the Commission and defe ndant-interve nors ca

nnot claim prejudice as a r esult of the “e x ce s s ” pag es, eve n if they are improperly

attache d, beca

use such attachments would be pe rfe ctly permissible if prese nted as pa rt of the a ppendix t o the re ply

brief that was also filed. D SMC ex plains t h at it merely provided the matter in the attachments rather than in the appendix “ for the convenie nce of the Court.” Id . at 2. Should the C o u rt d e e m t h e a tt a c h me n ts im

p r o p e r , D SM C r e qu e s ts th a t i t b e p e r mi tt e d to f il e an amende d appendix to it s reply brief, r eproduc ing the attachme nts there. Fur ther, DSMC contends, the joint m o t i o n t o strike mis-char acte rizes the nature of the argument that the two attachme nts suppor t be cause DSMC arg ued in its Rule 56.2 brief not that the Commi ssion should have underta ken its analy sis solely

on a volume basis but that the Commissi on

wa s r e qu ir e d to take the wh ole of the re c or d into a c c ount i n ma kin g its de c isi on , in c lud inga va ila ble

vo lum e data , a

nd that the sp e c if

ic argume nts in D SMC’ s r e ply br ie f a re a dd re sse d to argume nts prese nted in the Commiss ion’s response brief, pa rticularly those argu m en ts reg ardingthe support fo r t h e C o m m i s s i o n ’s d ec i s i o n o ff er ed b y t h e v al u e d at a o nt h e r ec o rd

. R ef er en ci n g United StatesCourt No. 06-00247 Pag e 4

v. Ziegler Bolt and Parts Co. , 19 CI T 13, 25-26 (1995) , DSMC contends it cannot be prohibited fr om addre ssing the a

rg uments raised in the Commission’s r esponse brief. Since the reply brief did not raise ne w ar g uments, DSMC arg ues, it does not believe that t h er e is any need f or supplemental briefingon the issues prese nted there in. The Commission and the defe ndant-interve nors in turn have filed anothe r motion, for leave to r e ply to DSM C’ s re sp on se to the ir mot ion to str ike

. Th a t mo tio n is he re by g ra nte d. Th e ir

re ply argues that USCI T Rule 56.2(c) (3) specific ally states that an a ppendix s hall contain “those portions of the a dmi nis tr a tiv e re c or d c ite d in the br ie f” wh ile 2(C ) of the Cha mbe r P ro c e dure s r e fe rs to appendic es as “ copies fr om the rec ord.” The Com mission and the defe ndant-interve nors ar g ue that

the purpose of

an appe ndix is to provide for the Court’s convenienc e copie s of docume nts that are already on the administrative re cord of the under ly ing proce eding .[ ] I f par

ties were permitted to include in the a ppendix additi onal narr ative and a

naly ses pre pare d for the Court, i t wo uld severe ly undermine the Court’s pag e limit requirements be cause parties c ould simpl y use the a pp e nd ix to c on tin

ue the ir br ie fs be y on d th e e sta

bli sh e d p a g e lim its

. Reply Comments to Plaintif f’s Response to Motion to Strike a t 2- 3 ( e mph a sis in o ri g ina l) . T he y a lso continue to arg ue that DSMC’s reply brief r aises a new argument (that the Commi ssion should have pe rf or me d th e lim ite d c omp e tit ion ana ly sis on

a qu anti ty ba sis rathe r t

ha n o n a v a lue ba sis ) b e c a

us e there is no specific r efe renc e in DSMC’s Rule 56.2 brief that the Commission shou l d have use d quantity measure s to perfor

m the limit ed compe tition analy sis and the C o m m i s s i o n and the de fe nd ant- int e rv e no rs did no t r a ise thi s is su e in t

he ir re sp on se br ie fs

. This court adhe res to the g ener al rule that a motion to st rike matter such as this is considere d an “e x traordina

ry measure [,] ” Acc iai Spe ciali Terni S.p.A. v. United States , 24 CI T 1211, 1217, 120 F.Supp.2d 1101, 1106 (2000), a nd as such should only

be “g rante d when ther e is a ‘flag rantCourt No. 06-00247 Pag e 5

disreg ard of

the rules of the court,’ as when ‘the brief demonstrates a lack of g ood faith, or . . . the court would be prejudice d or misled by the inclusion in the brief of the improper material.’” Rhodia, Inc. v . United States , 2 6 C I T 1 1 0 7 , 1 1 0 9 n . 5 , 2 4 0 F. S u p p . 2 d 1 2 4 7 , 1 2 4 9 n . 5 (2 0 0 2 ) ( qu o t i n g Jimlar Corp. v. United States , 10 CI T 671, 673, 674 F. S u p p . 9 32 (1986)) . Depe nding upon the circ umstances of

the par ticular c ase, it may

be appropriate to strike an entire brief, to st rike improper p o rt i o n s o f a br ief, or to disre g ard a ny objectionable matter conta ined in the brief

. Cf ., e . g. , Br oo k sid e Ve ne e rs, Ltd

. v . Un ite d S

tat es, 9 CI T 596 (1985) with Edge Im port Corp. v. United States , 82 Cust.C t. 343, C.R.D. 79-7 (1979). I nt h i s ac t i o n , ev en we re t h e co u rt t o co n cl u d e t h at DS M C ’s re p l y b ri ef ex ce ed s t h e 1 5 -p age limit , it cannot re asonably be concluded that the fil ing was m ade in “ flag rant disre g ard” of the rule s of the Court, n or does it appe ar that the matter a ddresse d by the two attac hments would prejudice

or misle a d th e c ou

rt . O n th e oth e r h and , th e Com mis sio n’ s a nd the de fe nd ant- int e rv e no r’ s p oin ts

are well taken. D SMC should have more pre cisely and dire ctly

briefe d the contention with re spect to quantity

analy sis at the outset and not by way of its reply

brief. T his court, howeve r, is more interes t ed i n substance ove r proc edure , and ther efor e conside rs that the alleg edly new matter embodied by

the two attac hments to DSMC ’s re p l y s hould be construe d as within the rea lm of pe rm iss ibl e ple a din g in re ply to poi nts ra ise d by the Com mis sio n an d the de fe nd ant- int e rv e no rs in response to DSMC’s Rule 56.2 brief . The motion to strike is therefor e denie d.Court No. 06-00247 Pag e 6

By the same token, re g ardingthe Commiss ion’s and the de fenda nt-intervenor s’ alter

native mot ion fo r l e a ve to f

ile sur- re ply , th e mot ion is g ra nte d so as to a ssi st the c ourt wi th t he c omp le xity of the iss ue s. SO ORDERED.

/ s / R. K enton Musgr ave R. KENTON MUSGRAVE, JUDGE Dated: August 9, 2007 New Y ork, Ne w York