August 16, 2012
Previously published on August 15, 2012
On August 10, 2012, Chief ALJ Charles E. Bullock issued the public version of Order No. 39 (dated August 2, 2012) in Certain Wiper Blades (Inv. No. 337-TA-816). In the Order, ALJ Bullock denied non-party Trico Products, Inc.’s (“Trico”) motion for reconsideration of Order No. 32. By way of background, ALJ Bullock had found in Order No. 32 that Trico had waived attorney-client privilege and/or work-product protection with respect to certain documents that Trico had produced in the investigation. See our July 25, 2012 post for more details. According to Order No. 39, Trico argued that reconsideration of Order No. 32 was necessary because of a “mistake of fact” and to prevent “manifest injustice.” Bosch opposed the motion and argued that Trico was improperly attempting to revisit issues already addressed. Bosch further argued that Trico was improperly attempting to present additional facts that had already been available to Trico at the time Trico submitted its response to Bosch’s original motion. After considering the arguments, ALJ Bullock determined to deny Trico’s motion for reconsideration. The ALJ noted that a motion for reconsideration may be granted based on: (1) an intervening change in controlling law; (2) the availability of new evidence; or (3) the need to correct a clear error of law or fact or prevent manifest injustice. Because none of these conditions applied in the instant situation, ALJ Bullock denied Trico’s motion.
|