Court Opinion

ID: 9927628
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-29 17:02:34.563093+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:23:58.266241
License: Public Domain

Slip Op. 24-9
                UNITED STATES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE

 ILDICO INC.,

        Plaintiff,

 v.                                                  Before: Jane A. Restani, Judge
                                                     Consol. Court No. 18-00136
 UNITED STATES,

        Defendant.

                                MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

[Defendant’s USCIT Rule 37 motion for sanctions is granted in part and denied in part.]
                                                                           Dated: January 29, 2024
Mandy E. Kirschner, Stein Shostak Shostak Pollack & O’Hara, LLP, of Los Angeles, CA, for
plaintiff Ildico Inc.

Marcella Powell, Senior Trial Counsel, International Trade Field Office, U.S. Department of
Justice, of New York, NY, for the defendant. With her on the brief were Brian M. Boynton,
Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Patricia M. McCarthy, Director, and Justin R. Miller,
Attorney-In-Charge, International Trade Field Office.

       Restani, Judge: In this matter plaintiff filed a third supplemental response to defendant’s

first request for production after discovery had been completed and all time periods had expired.

As a sanction, defendant seeks to prevent the use of the new responses as evidence in this matter,

or in the alternative, to reopen discovery.

       The first aspect of the motion concerns photographs that contain written information not

contained on earlier provided photographs. The new photographs were “discovered” by counsel

soon after formal discovery ended but were not immediately provided for reasons irrelevant here.

Counsel claims the discovery happened because it only recently learned of an internal internet site
Consol. Court No. 18-00136                                                                   Page 2

at the company of one of the witnesses. Companies normally have internal internet sites, and it is

unclear why plaintiff did not seek them out earlier. In the absence of such an explanation the court

concludes a sufficiently diligent search for responsive documents wasn’t made during the

discovery period. Further, plaintiff’s response to the Rule 37 motion asserts that the commercial

invoices submitted contain more information than the new photographs and that it only provided

the photographs as a courtesy, not because it was required to under USCIT Rule 26.1 Pl.’s Resp.

to R. 37 Mot. at 3–4, ECF No. 28 (Jan. 24, 2024). The Government, however, does not accept this

courtesy. Accordingly, this supplementation is not permitted and the new photographs containing

written information will not be permitted as evidence, except by consent of the Government.

       The second aspect of the Government’s Rule 37 motion concerns samples of crystals. It is

unclear to the court why the crystals are produced now and why the Government objects. The

sample watches contain crystals, and the sample crystals apparently have been seen by the

Government during depositions. Plaintiff alleges that the government did not request separate

crystals for examination and testing previously.

       Discovery sanctions appear unsupported as to the crystals.2 The court admittedly, is

mystified by both parties’ actions as to the crystals. Accordingly, this aspect of the motion is

denied without prejudice. Presumably, if this aspect of the discovery proceedings remains of

concern to the parties, future proceedings will ensue.

1
  The operative language of Rule 26(e) requires a party to supplement a prior disclosure or
response if “the party learns that in some material respect the disclosure or response is
incomplete or incorrect, and if the additional or corrective information has not otherwise been
made known to the other parties during the discovery process or in writing . . . .” USCIT R.
26(e)(1)(A).
2
  “If a party fails to provide information . . . as required by Rule 26(a) or (e), the party is not
allowed to use that information . . . unless the failure was substantially justified or is harmless.”
USCIT R. 37(c)(1).
Consol. Court No. 18-00136                                                       Page 3

       For the foregoing reasons, the court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part the Rule 37

motion, see ECF No. 26 (Jan. 9, 2024).

                                                                    /s/ Jane A. Restani__
                                                                    Jane A. Restani, Judge

Dated: January 29, 2024
       New York, New York