By Eric Schweibenz
On April 17, 2013, ALJ David P. Shaw issued Order No. 12 in Certain Compact Fluorescent Reflector Lamps, Products Containing Same and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-872).  In the Order, ALJ Shaw denied Respondents Satco Products, Inc. (“Satco”) and Maxlite, Inc.’s (“Maxlite”) request for “a date for an in-person conference with respect to a motion to bifurcate this proceeding; to limit discovery to domestic industry issues, and to set a hearing date thereon.”

According to the Order, Satco sent a letter to ALJ Shaw on April 15, 2013 requesting a conference with the ALJ and all counsel with respect to a proposed motion to limit discovery to domestic industry issues and to set a hearing date on those issues.  In the letter, Satco referred to the Commission Order instituting Inv. No. 337-TA-874, where the Commission directed the ALJ to hold an evidentiary hearing, find facts, and issue an early decision on the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement.  See our March 25, 2013 post for more details. 

ALJ Shaw’s Order states that Maxlite sent a separate letter joining in Satco’s request.  Further, Respondent Technical Consumer Products, Inc. sent a letter stating that it did not oppose Satco and Maxlite’s request.

The Order further states that Complainants Neptun Light, Inc. and Andrzej Bobel sent a letter to the ALJ stating that “there is no factual or legal basis upon which to even consider granting the Satco and Maxlite Respondents’ request.”

After considering the letters, ALJ Shaw found that he had “no authority to conduct this investigation according to the special procedures ordered by the Commission in Investigation No. 337-TA-874.”  Accordingly, he denied Satco and Maxlite’s request for the in-person conference with respect to their proposed motion.

Copyright © 2020 Oblon, McClelland, Maier & Neustadt, L.L.P.