Court Opinion

ID: 9915897
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-08 22:01:22.206425+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:21:36.280196
License: Public Domain

Slip Op. No. 24-2

             UNITED STATES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE

CVB, INC.,

                Plaintiff,

v.
                                                  Before: Stephen Alexander Vaden,
UNITED STATES,
                                                                   Judge
                Defendant,
                                                  Court No. 1:21-cv-00288 (SAV)
      and

BROOKLYN BEDDING, LLC, et al.,

               Defendant-Intervenors.

                                        OPINION

[Denying the Defendant’s Joint Motion to Retract the Court’s Public Slip Opinion
and Accord Confidential Treatment to Alleged Business Proprietary Information
Contained Therein.]

                                                              Dated: January 8, 2024

Geoffrey M. Goodale, Duane Morris, LLP, of Washington, DC, for Plaintiff CVB, Inc.
With him on the briefs were Andrew R. Sperl, Nathan J. Heeter, and Lauren E.
Wyszomierski, Duane Morris, LLP, and Stephen G. Larson, Robert C. O’Brien, and
Paul A. Rigali, Larson LLP, of Los Angeles, CA.

Jane C. Dempsey, Office of the General Counsel, United States International Trade
Commission, of Washington, DC, for Defendant United States. With her on the
briefs were Dominic Bianchi, General Counsel; Andrea C. Casson, Assistant
General Counsel for Litigation; and Brian R. Soiset, Attorney-Advisor.

Mary Jane Alves, Cassidy Levy Kent (USA) LLP, of Washington, DC, for Defendant-
Intervenors Brooklyn Bedding, LLC; Corsicana Mattress Company; Elite Comfort
Solutions; FXI, Inc.; Innocor, Inc.; Kolcraft Enterprises, Inc.; Leggett & Platt, Inc.;
the International Brotherhood of Teamsters; and United Steel, Paper and Forestry,
Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers
Court No. 1:21-cv-00288 (SAV)                                                      Page 2

International Union, AFL-CIO. With her on the briefs were Yohai Baisburd and
Sydney Reed.

       Vaden, Judge:          On December 19, 2023, the Court issued a public slip

opinion in the underlying case affirming the United States International Trade

Commission’s (the Commission) affirmative injury finding.          CVB, Inc. v. United

States, 47 CIT __, 2023 Ct. Intl. Trade LEXIS 189, Slip Op. 2023-184. Shortly

thereafter, the Commission notified the Court it believed the public opinion

contained unredacted business proprietary information. Def.’s Letter, ECF No. 90.

Before the Court is the Commission’s Joint Motion to Retract the Court’s Public Slip

Opinion and Accord Confidential Treatment to Business Proprietary Information

Contained Therein (Motion to Retract), ECF No. 93.           For the reasons set forth

below, the Court respectfully DENIES the Motion.

                                     BACKGROUND

       The underlying case involves a challenge to the Commission’s final

affirmative injury determination in its investigation of mattresses from Cambodia,

China, Indonesia, Malaysia, Serbia, Thailand, Turkey, and Vietnam.                See CVB,

2023 Ct. Intl. Trade LEXIS 189, at *1–2. The Slip Opinion outlined numerous

errors by the Commission but found the errors were ultimately harmless and

sustained the Commission’s final determination. See id. at *52. To explain what

the Court characterized as the Commission’s “mathematical obfuscation and

statistical   chicanery[,]”    the   Court   illustrated   how   responses   to    various

questionnaires contained in the record and a chart from the Commission’s final
Court No. 1:21-cv-00288 (SAV)                                                 Page 3

determination showed the opposite of what the Commission claimed they did. See

id. at *30–43.

      After the Court released its opinion, the Commission contacted the Court by

telephone and email to express concerns that the opinion revealed confidential

business proprietary information. The next day, the Commission filed a Letter to

the Court on official Commission letterhead requesting that the Court retract its

opinion because the Commission “identified business proprietary information” in

the opinion. Def.’s letter at 1, ECF No. 90. The Court issued a Paperless Order the

same day informing the parties that a written motion was the appropriate way to

raise any concerns regarding confidential or business proprietary information. ECF

No. 91. After business hours on Friday, December 22, the Commission filed the

Joint Motion. Motion to Retract, ECF No. 93.

                               LEGAL STANDARDS

      USCIT Rule 5(g) governs filings containing confidential or business

proprietary information. Rule 5(g)’s mandate is as clear as it is broad: “Any paper

containing confidential or business proprietary information must identify that

information by enclosing it in brackets.” The rule serves three purposes. First, the

rule protects confidential and business proprietary information by clearly

identifying it for the parties and the Court. Second, the rule promotes transparency

and public access to judicial records by requiring parties to designate precisely what

information is confidential.    Parties cannot protect information en masse by
Court No. 1:21-cv-00288 (SAV)                                                  Page 4

stamping a label atop every page. Instead, they must excise only that information

which is truly confidential, allowing the public to view everything else. See USCIT

R. 5(g). Finally, the rule promotes judicial efficiency by providing the Court with

one record it examines to adjudicate the case. Bracketing allows the Court to look

at one place to see the entire record the agency considered and know what portion of

that record the parties claim is confidential without having to move back and forth

between different sources.

      The Court’s rules do not define what constitutes confidential or business

proprietary information. 19 U.S.C. § 1677f(b) governs the Commission’s treatment

of business proprietary information.    Information submitted to the Commission

“which is designated as proprietary by the person submitting the information shall

not be disclosed to any person without the consent of the person submitting the

information[.]” 19 U.S.C. § 1677f(b)(1)(A). Information is neither confidential nor

business proprietary if it is publicly available. See Food Mktg. Inst. v. Argus Leader

Media, 139 S. Ct. 2356, 2363 (2019) (defining confidential information as

information that is “private” or “secret”) (citing Webster’s Seventh New Collegiate

Dictionary 174 (1963)); see also 19 U.S.C. § 1677f(b)(2) (the Commission can

determine a party’s designation of information as proprietary is unwarranted based

on the information’s “nature and extent … or its availability from public sources”).

Cf. Ruckelshaus v. Monsanto Co., 467 U.S. 986, 1002 (1984) (“Information that is

public knowledge … cannot be a trade secret.”) (internal citations omitted).
Court No. 1:21-cv-00288 (SAV)                                                 Page 5

      Merely claiming information is confidential does not make it so. Were that

true, a party could designate anything it wanted as confidential. Even when the

parties agree to secrecy, courts are “duty-bound to protect public access to judicial

proceedings and records.” Binh Hoa Le v. Exeter Fin. Corp., 990 F.3d 410, 417 (5th

Cir. 2021). Where the parties lack any incentive to defend the public’s right of

access, the Court must balance that right with the need for confidentiality. Id. at

419. Transparency — not secrecy — is the default rule. Id. at 417.

                                   DISCUSSION

      The Motion asks the Court to retract its Slip Opinion and issue a new

confidential opinion with forty-four sets of brackets in place of information

contained in the original Slip Opinion. See Motion to Retract Attach. A, ECF No.

93. The objected-to information falls into two broad categories, company names and

numerical approximations. First, the Motion to Retract objects to the Slip Opinion’s

naming of the companies that responded to the Commission’s questionnaires. See,

e.g., id. at 2–4 (requesting the Court remove the names of various companies). This

information is not confidential because the Commission failed to abide by USCIT

Rule 5(g) when designating information as confidential or business proprietary. See

id. at 3 (admitting the cited pages “were not individually bracketed”). Second, the

Motion to Retract objects to the Court’s usage of approximations to summarize

information the Commission did properly bracket according to USCIT Rule 5(g).

See, e.g., id. at 1–2 (objecting to various numerical approximations). This portion of
Court No. 1:21-cv-00288 (SAV)                                                       Page 6

the Motion fails because the information is publicly available, the Court’s

approximations do not “closely track” the Commission’s figures as the Motion to

Retract suggests, or both. Id. at 1. The Motion’s motley approach to redaction

demonstrates the importance of properly designating information as confidential

under USCIT Rule 5(g) and maintaining a consistent approach to what constitutes

confidential or business proprietary information. Compare id. at 1–2 (objecting to

company names and production ratios), with id. at 2–3 (objecting to company names

but not purchase ratios).            The Commission can best encourage voluntary

cooperation from companies and protect allegedly confidential information by

following the rules.      Cf. id. at 2–3 (explaining why protecting confidential

information is important to the Commission).

                                A.      Company Names

       The Motion to Retract asks the Court to censor the names of “non-party

purchasers that voluntarily provided questionnaire responses” 1 to the Commission.

Id. at 2. According to the Motion, the Commission views the “entirety of purchaser

questionnaire responses, including the identity of those purchasers” as confidential

business proprietary information. Id. However, the responses to the purchaser

1  Although the Motion to Retract characterizes the responses as voluntary, the
questionnaire itself does not. The questionnaire states a response “is mandatory and
failure to reply as directed can result in a subpoena or other order to compel the submission
of records or information in your firm’s possession.”            Blank “U.S. – Purchaser”
Questionnaire at 1, U.S. Int’l Trade Comm’n, https://bit.ly/3vjf04h (last visited Jan. 8,
2024). This is not the only inconsistency between what the Commission represents in the
Motion to Retract and what the Commission’s own questionnaires say. See infra note 4.
Court No. 1:21-cv-00288 (SAV)                                                   Page 7

questionnaires were not bracketed in accordance with USCIT Rule 5(g), meaning

any claim to confidentiality was waived long ago.

      USCIT Rule 5(g) requires that “[a]ny paper containing confidential or

business proprietary information must identify that information by enclosing it in

brackets.” Counsel and the parties are responsible for complying with the Court’s

rules and orders regarding the redaction of sensitive information.       Cf. In re E-

Government Act of 2002 and Privacy Redaction, Admin. Order No. 08-01, at 2 (CIT

May     2,    2008,    amend.     Nov.     25,    2008,    eff.   Jan.     1,    2009),

https://www.cit.uscourts.gov/sites/cit/files/AO-08-01.pdf (“It is the responsibility of

counsel and the parties to be sure that all filings comply with the Court’s Rules,

orders, or notices regarding the redaction of personal data identifiers or other

sensitive information.”).    The Commission admits that it did not bracket the

purchaser questionnaires filed with the Court. Motion to Retract Attach. A at 3,

ECF No. 93. The Motion to Retract makes three excuses for this. First, it asserts

that the company names were bracketed in the Commission’s index to the record.

Id. Second, it notes that the Commission stamped a “Business Proprietary” label

atop the pages of the questionnaires. Id. Third, it makes veiled excuses about the

length of the administrative record.      See id. (describing the confidential joint

appendix as “voluminous”).

      The Motion’s first excuse is that the Commission bracketed the company

names in the index it filed with the confidential joint appendix. This is half true
Court No. 1:21-cv-00288 (SAV)                                                  Page 8

but of no consequence. The index does contain brackets in place of the names of the

companies that responded to the questionnaires; but instead of brackets around the

purportedly confidential information (e.g., “[company name]”), the index contains

brackets around empty space (e.g., “[    ]”). See, e.g., Confidential J.A. Index at 39–

40, ECF No. 66. That is how the public version of a document should be bracketed,

not the confidential version.   See USCIT R. 5(g) (“A non-confidential version in

which the confidential or business proprietary information is deleted must

accompany a confidential version of a paper.”). This detail is crucial because it

means that, even if the Court exercised extra diligence and searched the entire

confidential joint appendix to confirm a company’s name was not designated as

confidential anywhere, it would not locate the place where the Commission

supposedly designated the company name as confidential because the blank space

in place of the company name would not show up in a search. Disregarding the

parties’ error does them no service, as bracketing information somewhere else in the

record does not magically afford protection across the entire record.

      The second excuse proffered is the “business proprietary” label stamped at

the top of the questionnaire pages. Motion to Retract Attach. A at 3, ECF No. 93.

This label, which is often partially obscured by the stamping mechanism of the

Court’s e-filing system, is exactly the type of blanket designation that USCIT Rule

5(g) prohibits.   Rule 5(g) does not allow parties to designate information as

confidential by labelling an entire page.       Indeed, even Government officials
Court No. 1:21-cv-00288 (SAV)                                                  Page 9

classifying a document for national security reasons must indicate “which portions

are classified … and which portions are unclassified.” Exec. Order No. 13,526, 75

Fed. Reg. 707, 710 (Dec. 29, 2009). Looking at the Commission’s questionnaires, it

is apparent why blanket designation is disfavored. One question asks, in essence,

whether the responding company is a brick-and-mortar or online retailer. Blank

“U.S.    –   Purchaser”   Questionnaire     at   9,   U.S.   Int’l   Trade   Comm’n,

https://bit.ly/3vjf04h (last visited Jan. 8, 2023). 2 Surely it is no secret whether a

company has physical storefronts or whether it sells mattresses online. Allowing

blanket designation like the Motion to Retract requests is incompatible with a

system where public access to judicial proceedings is the default rule. See Binh Hoa

Le, 990 F.3d at 417.

        Finally, the Commission makes numerous allusions to the length of the

administrative record to justify its failure to abide by USCIT Rule 5(g). See, e.g.,

Motion to Retract at 2, ECF No. 93 (noting the length of the confidential record);

Motion to Retract Attach. A at 3, ECF No. 93 (twice describing the record as

“voluminous” while explaining that the Commission “inadvertently” failed to

bracket large swaths of the record it now claims contain confidential information).

Courts may not use administrative burden to justify denying public access to

judicial records. In re Leopold to Unseal Certain Elec. Surveillance Applications &

2 A blank version of the purchaser questionnaire in this investigation is available for
download on the Commission’s website at the listed URL.
Court No. 1:21-cv-00288 (SAV)                                                Page 10

Ords., 964 F.3d 1121, 1134 (D.C. Cir. 2020) (Garland, J.). Neither can quasi-judicial

agencies like the Commission.

      The Commission and the other parties missed multiple opportunities to raise

concerns about this information earlier. If the parties believed the company names

were confidential, the parties should have bracketed that information. See USCIT

R. 5(g).   Some of the information to which the Motion to Retract objects was

discussed in open court at oral argument. See, e.g., Oral Arg. Tr. at 25:5–26:16,

ECF No. 75 (discussing specific companies by name and their product mixes). If the

parties believed this information was confidential, they should have raised that

concern during oral argument or on reviewing the transcript. See Admin. Order No.

02-01 at 8, 20 (outlining the procedures for breaches involving confidential

information); Def.’s Public Req. for Redaction, United States v. Aegis Security Ins.

Co., No. 1:20-cv-03628 (CIT Jan. 2, 2024), ECF No. 132 (requesting redaction of

allegedly confidential information in an oral argument transcript). It is strange

that only now, after an opinion some may characterize as less than complimentary,

does the Commission demand secrecy.         If it was fine to discuss unbracketed

company names in a public court session, it is fine to do the same in a written public

opinion.   The Commission’s request to redact the names of the responding

companies is therefore DENIED.
Court No. 1:21-cv-00288 (SAV)                                                    Page 11

                    B.     The Court’s Use of Approximations

      The second category of information to which the Motion to Retract objects is

the Court’s use of numerical approximations to describe the general conditions of

the mattress market. See generally Motion to Retract Attach. A at 1–2, ECF No. 93.

This includes the origin of imports, relative share of imported and domestic

mattresses in the market, and the segmented nature of mattress production and

purchasing. See id.

      As a preliminary matter, the Court doubts that much of the allegedly

confidential information the Commission did properly bracket qualifies as

confidential   by   the   Commission’s    own    definition 3   or   by   any   reasonable

understanding of the terms “confidential” or “business proprietary.”                  The

Commission’s own questionnaires state “[t]he commercial and financial data

furnished in response to this questionnaire that reveal the individual operations of

your firm will be treated as confidential” and that “general characterizations of

numerical business proprietary information (such as discussion of trends)” will be

treated as confidential information only for good cause. 4 Blank “U.S. – Purchaser”

Questionnaire at 4 (emphasis added). Yet the Motion to Retract objects to public

3 The Commission’s rules do not necessarily govern the Court, but information that fails to

satisfy the Commission’s standards for confidentiality is unlikely to satisfy the Court’s
standards.
4 In the Motion to Retract, the Commission claims that it considers “the entirety of

purchaser questionnaire responses” to be business confidential information. Motion to
Retract Attach. A at 3, ECF No. 93. Once again, the Commission’s own questionnaires are
at war with its Motion. Cf. supra note 1.
Court No. 1:21-cv-00288 (SAV)                                             Page 12

discussion of the general market trends of declining Chinese imports and rising

imports from other countries. See Motion to Retract Attach. A at 1, ECF No. 93.

That is precisely the type of information the Commission’s questionnaires

acknowledge is not confidential or business proprietary.    It does not reveal the

individual operations of any company and is instead a general discussion of broad

market trends. The same goes for the Slip Opinion’s description of the respective

market shares of imported and domestically produced mattresses. See CVB, 2023

Ct. Intl. Trade LEXIS 189, at *4, *10–11.

      Much of the information on market trends and market share is publicly

available. The decline in Chinese imports and concurrent rise in imports from other

countries is well documented. See, e.g., David Perry, China’s Mattress Import Share

Falls to 1% in August, FURNITURE TODAY (Oct. 8, 2019), https://bit.ly/4aFKfH9

(reporting Chinese mattresses were 82 percent of imports in January 2019 and 1

percent in August 2019); David Perry, Mattress Alliance, Petitioners Square Off

Over Antidumping, FURNITURE TODAY (Apr. 13, 2020), https://bit.ly/3H3wmVE

(reporting Vietnam, Thailand, Turkey, Serbia, Malaysia, Indonesia, and Cambodia

collectively account for 83.3 percent of mattress imports). Information about the

relative market share of imports and the domestic industry is also available from

general interest newspapers.    Nathan Bomey, Chinese ‘Dumping’ Has Slashed

Mattress Prices, but at a Cost to the U.S. Bedding Industry, USA TODAY (Dec. 19,

2019), https://bit.ly/47qssRn (stating Chinese imports in 2018 were “equivalent to
Court No. 1:21-cv-00288 (SAV)                                                 Page 13

about one-third of total mattress production capacity in the United States.”). The

Court will not redact information as confidential that some of the responding

parties themselves have freely provided to the press.         See, e.g., David Perry,

Mattress Alliance, Petitioners Square Off Over Antidumping, FURNITURE TODAY

(Apr. 13, 2020), https://bit.ly/3H3wmVE (quoting Ashley Furniture Vice President

Brian Adams saying imports from Vietnam, Thailand, Turkey, Serbia, Malaysia,

Indonesia, and Cambodia make up “22 [percent] of the U.S. mattress market” and

“83.3 [percent] of all mattress imports”). Although the parties claim that knowledge

of Ashley Furniture’s lopsided mattress production is “sensitive,” Ashley’s Vice

President Brian Adams testified at the Commission’s public hearing and stated that

Ashley had shifted “almost exclusively to [boxed mattresses], both in our purchases

and in our production.” Compare Motion to Retract Attach. A at 2, ECF No. 93,

with Statement of Brian Adams at 143:25–144:5, J.A. at 7,569, ECF No. 60, and

CVB, 2023 Ct. Intl. Trade LEXIS 189, at *36 (“Of the twelve companies that

produced both mattress types in 2019, five produced virtually none of one kind” and

“Ashley … produced far less than one percent of U.S. production of one kind of

mattress.”). Because this information is publicly available, it fails to qualify as

confidential or business proprietary information. See Food Mktg. Inst., 139 S. Ct. at

2363.

        Even if information is confidential or business proprietary, the Court’s use of

approximations appropriately summarizes the information without revealing exact
Court No. 1:21-cv-00288 (SAV)                                               Page 14

figures.    See   Blank   “U.S.   –   Purchaser”   Questionnaire   at   4   (“general

characterizations of numerical business proprietary information” will be treated as

confidential only for good cause). Some of the objections raised border on frivolity.

For instance, the Motion to Retract objects to the Court’s use of the phrase

“thousands of percent[.]” Motion to Retract Attach. A at 1, ECF No. 93; see also

CVB, 2023 Ct. Intl. Trade LEXIS 189, at *4.        Thousands of percent can mean

anything from 2,000 percent to 999,999 percent. Such a wide range can hardly tip

off a reader to anything approaching the exact number the Commission bracketed.

The same goes for the term “negligible.” Compare Motion to Retract Attach. A at 2,

ECF No. 93, with CVB, 2023 Ct. Intl. Trade LEXIS 189, at *36. The word negligible

is comparative. See Webster’s Second New International Dictionary 1638 (1956)

(defining negligible as “that may be neglected or disregarded”); Negligible, Oxford

English Dictionary, https://bit.ly/3NRiW2R (defining negligible as “so small or

insignificant as not to be worth considering”). That a company’s market share of

boxed mattress production is negligible compared to its unknown share of flat-

packed mattress production does not reveal the actual market share percentage for

either. Compare Motion to Retract Attach. A at 2, ECF No. 93, with CVB, 2023 Ct.

Intl. Trade LEXIS 189, at *35–36.

      Elsewhere, the Court similarly couches its language to avoid exactness. The

Slip Opinion uses words like “roughly,” “about,” and “at least” to indicate that the

numbers given are merely a rough approximation. See, e.g., CVB, 2023 Ct. Intl.
Court No. 1:21-cv-00288 (SAV)                                                Page 15

Trade LEXIS 189, at *4, *10, *35, *39.      It also uses ratios to demonstrate the

lopsided nature of domestic mattress production without revealing the raw

production figures.   Id. at *35–37.   Ballpark figures like these provide enough

information for the reader to understand the case without revealing any

confidential or business proprietary information. Because these general summaries

do not reveal such information, they need not be redacted.

                       C.    The Virtues of Transparency

      The American tradition of public access to judicial proceedings dates back not

merely to the founding, or even to the English common law, but all the way back to

Ancient Rome. Binh Hoa Le, 990 F.3d at 418 (“The principle traces back to Roman

law, where trials were res publica — public affairs.”). Legal arguments and judicial

decisions are meant to be public because “American courts are not private tribunals

summoned to resolve disputes confidentially at taxpayer expense.” Id. at 421. This

is especially true when the courts resolve disputes to which the Government is a

party, affecting the entire citizenry. Like a student taking a math test, courts are

expected to show their work.     The public does not and should not accept final

answers to complicated questions on faith alone. See Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v.

Virginia, 448 U.S. 555, 595 (1980) (Brennan, J., concurring) (“Closed trials breed

suspicion of prejudice and arbitrariness, which in turn spawns disrespect for law.”).

      Although the Court adjudicates the Motion to Retract based on the law and

the facts currently before it, this is not the first time the Commission has taken a
Court No. 1:21-cv-00288 (SAV)                                                 Page 16

questionable position on transparency before the Court. The Commission took a

similar tact in a high-profile case involving fertilizer imports. See generally OCP

S.A. v. United States, 658 F. Supp. 3d 1297 (CIT 2023). In a conference prior to oral

argument, the Court noted that more than one hundred members of Congress had

formally commented on the Commission’s decision. Despite the public interest in

the case, the Commission urged the Court to hold the entire oral argument in closed

session. Audio Recording: Conference Call Regarding Oral Argument at 24:33–50

(June 7, 2022), ECF No. 144. 5 This would bar attendance by not only the public but

also all non-lawyers, including corporate officers of the parties to the case. The

Commission’s counsel urged this route because she believed business proprietary

information “underline[d] all the aspects and all the disputes” in the case. Id. at

29:05–15. The Court decided to hold a public oral argument with a confidential

session at the end if necessary. Id. at 33:00–35:00. The transcript of the eventual

oral argument was 229 pages. See Confidential Oral Arg. Tr., ECF No. 130. The

public portion comprised 192 of those pages. See Public Oral Arg. Tr., ECF No. 129.

The opinion dispensing with the case was entirely public.             Compare Audio

Recording: Conference Call at 24:33–50 (Commission counsel claiming it would be

impossible to conduct a public hearing on the matter), with OCP S.A., 658 F. Supp.

3d at 1297–1324 (28 reporter pages of opinion, none of which are confidential).

5 The ECF Numbers in this citation and the remaining citations in this paragraph
correspond to docket entries in the OCP case, not this case. The Court Number for OCP is
1:21-cv-00219.
Court No. 1:21-cv-00288 (SAV)                                                    Page 17

         As with OCP, the Commission’s decision in this matter and in the related

petitions regarding mattresses from China drew public attention. Multiple media

outlets published reports or editorials about the antidumping petitions. See, e.g.,

Derek Miller & Miles Hansen, Will Biden ‘Go to the Mattresses’ on Trade Policy?

THE HILL (Feb. 23, 2021), https://bit.ly/3NPsHOQ. Numerous local outlets reported

the petitions’ potential effects on businesses. See, e.g., Dennis Romboy, Mattress

Fight:    Utah Firm Says ‘Corporate Warfare’ Threatens to Blunt Filling Critical

Coronavirus Needs, DESERET NEWS (Apr. 18, 2020), https://bit.ly/3tEcxBa. Senators

on both sides of the political aisle publicly commented on the petitions and how the

Commission handled them. See, e.g., id. (Senator Mike Lee of Utah); Brown, Blunt

Applaud Trade Commission Ruling on Mattress Antidumping Investigation (July 6,

2021), https://bit.ly/48EUdXr (Senators Sherrod Brown of Ohio and Roy Blunt of

Missouri).    When faced with public attention, the Commission’s reflexive action

appears to be to stifle public access to the judicial review of its decisions.

         Although the Commission is not an elected body, it is part of the executive

branch and is accountable to the people through their elected representatives. The

Commission’s actions, like the Court’s, are not merely academic. An injury finding

can make goods more expensive for consumers across the nation. A finding of no

injury can close factories and destroy manufacturing jobs. Companies affected by

this investigation claimed the Commission’s decision could result in job losses. See,

e.g., Romboy, Mattress Fight, DESERET NEWS (Apr. 18, 2020), https://bit.ly/3tEcxBa
Court No. 1:21-cv-00288 (SAV)                                                  Page 18

(Mattress company Malouf claiming the petition in this case “threatens to shut

down its business and leave 1,200 workers … without jobs”). When someone loses

his livelihood as a result of Government action, he has a right to know how and why

the Government took that action. Neither administrative agencies nor this Court

can hide from scrutiny by censoring information.         Citizens can only hold their

Government accountable if they know what that Government is doing. See Bien

Hoa Le, 990 F.3d at 417 (“[B]ecause ‘We the People’ are not meant to be bystanders,

the default expectation is transparency — that what happens in the halls of

government happens in public view.”); Matter of Krynicki, 983 F.2d 74, 75 (7th Cir.

1992) (“What happens in the halls of government is presumptively open to public

scrutiny.”).   Though the Commission may be an “independent” agency, it is not

immune to legal and democratic accountability. Cf. 19 U.S.C. §§ 1330, 1333(g). The

Constitution governs all branches of the Government — even the administrative

state. See Loper Bright Enters., Inc. v. Raimondo, 45 F.4th 359 (D.C. Cir. 2022),

cert. granted in part sub nom. Loper Bright Enters. v. Raimondo, 143 S. Ct. 2429

(2023); Relentless, Inc. v. Dep't of Com., 62 F.4th 621 (1st Cir.), cert. granted in part

sub nom. Relentless, Inc. v. Dep't of Com., 144 S. Ct. 325 (2023).

                                   CONCLUSION

      Transparency is a touchstone of our judicial system. Only information that is

truly confidential may be concealed from the public.          Parties are expected to

diligently follow the rules regarding confidentiality to promote public access to the
Court No. 1:21-cv-00288 (SAV)                                                 Page 19

judiciary, protection of confidential information, and judicial efficiency. Because the

parties failed to abide by the Court's rules and object to statements by the Court

that are not confidential, the Motion to Retract is DENIED .

                                              Stephen Alexander Vaden, Judge