By Eric Schweibenz
On September 22, 2011, ALJ Robert K. Rogers, Jr. issued Order No. 28C in Certain Liquid Crystal Display Devices, Including Monitors, Televisions, and Modules, and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-741/749).  In the Order, ALJ Rogers denied Respondents Chimei Innolux Corp., Chi Mei Optoelectronics USA, Inc., and Innolux Corp’s. (collectively, “CMI”) motion to reopen the record for the limited purpose of admitting certain exhibits.

According to the Order, CMI sought to reopen the record to admit certain exhibits that were inadvertently omitted from the exhibit list accompanying an expert’s rebuttal witness statement.  CMI argued, among other things, that excluding the exhibits would unfairly penalize CMI for a clerical oversight.  Complainants Thomson Licensing SAS and Thomson Licensing LLC opposed the motion and argued that CMI sought to do exactly what ALJ Rogers warned the parties they could not do – reopen their cases because they forgot to offer an exhibit into evidence.  Thomson also argued that CMI did not offer sufficient justification for the extraordinary relief sought. 

In the Order, ALJ Rogers first noted that Commission Rule 210.42(g) provides that “[a]t any time prior to the filing of the initial determination, the administrative law judge may reopen the proceedings for the reception of additional evidence.”  ALJ Rogers determined that the “use of the word ‘may’ implies that reopening the record is a discretionary decision.”  In this respect, ALJ Rogers further noted that he “made it clear to all parties that [he] would not permit parties [to] reopen their cases to admit exhibits that they forgot about…”  Accordingly, ALJ Rogers determined that CMI “failed to demonstrate good cause to reopen the record” and denied CMI’s motion.