On December 1, 2015, ALJ Thomas B. Pender issued the public version of Order No. 42 (dated November 18, 2015) in Certain Windshield Wipers and Components Thereof(Inv. No. 337-TA-928/937). Please further note that Oblon represents Complainants in this matter.
By way of background, the investigation is based on July 25, 2014 and October 15, 2014 complaints filed by Valeo North America, Inc. of Troy, Michigan and Delmex de Juarez S. de R.L. de C.V. of Mexico (collectively, “Valeo”) alleging violation of Section 337 by Trico Products Corporation and Trico Componentes SA de CV (collectively, “Trico”) in the importation into the U.S. and sale of certain windshield wipers and components thereof. See our August 1, 2014, August 28, 2014, October 16, 2014, November 19, 2014, December 15, 2014, July 7, 2015, and November 25, 2015 posts for more details on this investigation.
In Order No. 42, ALJ Pender first rejected Trico’s request to produce redacted, public versions of certain Valeo trial exhibits in the event that any portion thereof is deemed non-confidential. Specifically, ALJ Pender determined that Trico provided no good cause for its request and further noted that “I will not compel Valeo at this late juncture, months after the evidentiary hearing, to produce redacted versions of the exhibits at issue, because for it to do so would cause Valeo substantial competitive harm.”
Next, ALJ Pender rejected Trico’s arguments that certain Valeo trial exhibits were improperly designated as containing confidential business information (“CBI”) because they were either publicly available or shared with third parties. More particularly, ALJ Pender agreed with Valeo’s arguments (and declarations from two Valeo employees filed in support of Valeo’s opposition to Trico’s motion) that at least portions of the exhibits at issue are not publicly available and include CBI.
ALJ Pender also rejected Trico’s arguments that certain Valeo trial exhibits were improperly designated as CBI because they are more than a decade old. Specifically, ALJ Pender again relied on the declarations from two Valeo employees filed in support of Valeo’s opposition to Trico’s motion and also found that “[t]here is no per se rule that old documents do not qualify for CBI protection.”
Accordingly, ALJ Pender denied Trico’s motion to declassify certain admitted Valeo trial exhibits.