UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
`
`Washington, D.C.
`
`
`
`
`In the Matter of
`
`CERTAIN FOODSERVICE
`EQUIPMENT AND COMPONENTS
`THEREOF
`
`
`
` Inv. No. 337-TA-1166
`
`ORDER NO. 51:
`
`
`
`
`
`GRANTING COMPLAINANTS’ MOTION TO AMEND
`PROCEDURAL SCHEDULE AND GROUND RULES; ORDERING
`DEPOSITION OF DR. LEI SCHLITZ; AND POSTPONING
`HEARING BY THREE WEEKS
`
`(June 29, 2020)
`
`On June 17, 2020, Complainants Illinois Tool Works, Inc., Vesta (Guangzhou) Catering
`
`Equipment Co., Ltd., Vesta Global Limited, and Admiral Craft Equipment Corporation filed a
`
`motion to amend the Procedural Schedule and Ground Rules in this investigation to provide a
`
`date for certain fact witnesses who will testify remotely to submit written witness statements in
`
`lieu of live direct testimony (Motion Docket No. 1166-044). Respondents Guangzhou Rebenet
`
`Catering Equipment Manufacturing Co., Ltd., and Zhou Hao, Aceplus International Limited (aka
`
`Ace Plus International Ltd.), Guangzhou Liangsheng Trading Co., Ltd., and Zeng Zhaoliang
`
`filed a response to the motion on June 23, 2020.1 The Commission Investigative Staff (“Staff”)
`
`also filed a response on June 23, 2020. Complainants filed a reply brief on June 24, 2020.
`
`Complainants seek to amend the Procedural Schedule and Ground Rules to permit the
`
`submission of witness statements for four fact witnesses: Lei Schlitz, Paul Forrest, Rick Powers,
`
`and Mark Suchecki. There is no opposition to Complainants’ proposal to submit witness
`
`
`1 The response time was shortened pursuant to Order No. 50 (Jun. 18, 2020).
`
`Petitioners Samsung and Sony Ex-1026, 0001
`
`

`

`statements for these witnesses in lieu of live direct testimony, and Complainants and
`
`Respondents have agreed to a schedule for exchanging the witness statements and filing
`
`objections thereto. Respondents’ Response at 2; Complainants’ Reply at 1-2. Staff argues that
`
`Complainants have not shown good cause for any amendment to the procedural schedule at this
`
`late date. Staff’s Response at 6-7.
`
`Complainants further seek to expand the scope of Dr. Schlitz’s testimony, allowing her to
`
`sponsor and testify regarding additional exhibits. Complainants’ Motion at 4-5. Complainants
`
`submit that Dr. Schlitz should be permitted to testify with respect to the topics that were
`
`previously identified for fact witnesses that will not be able to travel from China, including Bob
`
`Wang, Raymond Chen, Allay Li, and Kevin Lai. Id. Respondents oppose this expansion of
`
`Dr. Schlitz’s testimony, arguing that the scope of the testimony is unclear and that there has been
`
`no fair opportunity to question Dr. Schlitz regarding her potential testimony. Respondents’
`
`Response at 3-7. Moreover, Respondents identify several exhibits identified in Complainants’
`
`motion that were not previously associated with any witness testimony. Id. at 6-7. Staff also
`
`opposes the expansion of Dr. Schlitz’s testimony, noting that the previous deposition of
`
`Dr. Schlitz was limited in time and scope, and argues that her proposed testimony may conflict
`
`with rulings on motions in limine. Staff’s Response at 7-9.2
`
`I agree with Staff that Complainants have not shown good cause to amend the Procedural
`
`Schedule at this stage of the investigation, and Complainants should have raised these issues
`
`earlier. Order No. 37 set a schedule that included deadlines for the parties to confer regarding
`
`alternatives to live testimony, to schedule depositions, and to raise objections. Order No. 37 at 3-
`
`
`2 Staff also identifies certain exhibits containing confidential information that should not be
`accessible to Dr. Schlitz, but these exhibits were declassified pursuant to a letter sent on behalf of
`Kevin Lai, submitted by Complainants’ counsel on June 26, 2020.
`
`
`
`2
`
`Petitioners Samsung and Sony Ex-1026, 0002
`
`

`

`5 (Apr. 24, 2020).3 Nevertheless, I agree with Complainants that the use of witness statements
`
`would streamline the conduct of the hearing, and there is no opposition to this change in the
`
`format of the witness testimony. With respect to the scope of Dr. Schlitz’s testimony, I am
`
`sensitive to Complainants’ arguments that a substantial body of relevant evidence will not be
`
`admissible without an expansion of the scope of her witness statement. Accordingly, the Ground
`
`Rules shall be amended to allow Complainants to submit their additional witness statements,
`
`including additional testimony from Dr. Schlitz that is commensurate with the scope of the
`
`witness outlines for Complainants’ Chinese witnesses who will not be able to participate in the
`
`hearing. All of this testimony will not necessarily be admissible, however, and Respondents and
`
`Staff raise several legitimate concerns in their oppositions that may be renewed in objections
`
`after the witness statements are served.
`
`To further mitigate the prejudice to Respondents and Staff with respect to Dr. Schlitz’s
`
`testimony, Complainants shall make Dr. Schlitz available for a deposition, which may be
`
`conducted remotely. Although Complainants argue that Dr. Schlitz was already deposed
`
`pursuant to Order No. 10, that deposition was limited to four hours and did not address the full
`
`range of topics that Complainants now propose to address in her witness statement. Order
`
`No. 10 (Dec. 20, 2019). An additional deposition of Dr. Schlitz will allow Respondents and
`
`Staff to question her regarding the content of her witness statement and to raise appropriate
`
`objections. Like any fact witness, her testimony must be within the scope of her personal
`
`knowledge, and Complainants will not be allowed to use her testimony to introduce new facts or
`
`evidence beyond the scope of their previously disclosed contentions and pre-hearing briefing.
`
`3 Complainants suggest that they did not expect that the hearing would be conducted remotely,
`but this possibility was explicitly noted in Order No. 37, and subsequently in Order No. 44, the
`parties were told that “it is likely that any live hearing in this investigation will be held via
`remote technology.” Order No. 44 at 14 n.4 (May 19, 2020).
`
`
`
`3
`
`Petitioners Samsung and Sony Ex-1026, 0003
`
`

`

`Because of the late filing of Complainants’ motion, there is insufficient time in the
`
`procedural schedule to conduct a deposition and allow for the consideration of objections in
`
`advance of the hearing scheduled to begin July 20, 2020. Accordingly, the dates for the
`
`evidentiary hearing shall be postponed by three weeks. Other pre-hearing deadlines shall be
`
`extended accordingly. Complainants and Respondents have agreed that Complainants shall
`
`serve their witness statements on July 3, 2020, but Staff does not appear to be part of this
`
`agreement, and July 3 is a federal holiday. The date for Complainants to serve their witness
`
`statements shall therefore be set for Monday, July 6, 2020. The deposition of Dr. Schlitz shall be
`
`conducted no later than Friday, July 17, 2020. The deadline for objections to the new witness
`
`statements shall be Friday, July 24, 2020. Responses to these objections shall be due on Friday,
`
`July 31, 2020. The hearing shall be rescheduled for August 10-14, 2020. Initial post-hearing
`
`briefs shall be due August 31, 2020, and reply post-hearing briefs shall be due September 11,
`
`2020. The target date will not be extended at this time.
`
`For the reasons and to the extent discussed above, Motion Docket No. 1166-044 is hereby
`
`GRANTED. The remaining deadlines in the procedural schedule are set forth below:
`
`Event
`File objections to deposition designations
`Complainants serve witness statements
`File response to deposition objections
`Deadline for deposition of Dr. Lei Schlitz
`File objections to witness statements
`File response to witness statement objections
`Pre-hearing conference
`Hearing
`File initial post-hearing briefs and final exhibit lists
`File reply post-hearing briefs
`
`
`
`4
`
`Date
`July 2, 2020
`July 6, 2020
`July 10, 2020
`July 17, 2020
`July 24, 2020
`July 31, 2020
`August 10, 2020
`August 10-14, 2020
`August 31, 2020
`September 11, 2020
`
`Petitioners Samsung and Sony Ex-1026, 0004
`
`

`

`Initial Determination due
`Target date for completion of investigation
`
`SO ORDERED.
`
`November 5, 2020
`March 5, 2021
`
`
`
`Dee Lord
`Administrative Law Judge
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`Petitioners Samsung and Sony Ex-1026, 0005
`
`

`

`CERTAIN FOODSERVICE EQUIPMENT AND
`COMPONENTS THEREOF
`
`Inv. No. 337-TA-1166
`
`PUBLIC CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I, Lisa R. Barton, hereby certify that the attached ORDER has been served via
`EDIS upon the Commission Investigative Attorney, Monisha Deka, Esq., and the
`following parties as indicated, on 6/29/2020.
`
`Lisa R. Barton, Secretary
`U.S. International Trade Commission
`500 E Street, SW, Room 112
`Washington, DC 20436
`
`On Behalf of Complainants Illinois Tool Works Inc., Vesta
`Global Limited, Vesta (Guangzhou)Catering Equipment Co.,
`Ltd., and Admiral Craft Equipment Corp.:
`
`Sturgis M. Sobin, Esq.
`COVINGTON & BURLING LLP
`One City Center
`850 Tenth Street NW
`Washington, DC 20001
`Email: ssobin@cov.com
`
`☐ Via Hand Delivery
`☐ Via Express Delivery
`☐ Via First Class Mail
`☒ Other: Email Notification
`of Availability for Download
`
`On Behalf of Respondents Guangzhou Rebenet Catering
`Equipment Manufacturing Co., Ltd., Zhou Hao, Aceplus
`International Limited (aka Ace Plus International Ltd.),
`Guangzhou Liangsheng Trading Co., Ltd., and Zeng
`Zhaoliang:
`
`Brian Boyd, Esq.
`FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
`1180 Peachtree Street, NE 21st Floor
`Atlanta, GA 30309
`Email: bboyd@fr.com
`
`☐ Via Hand Delivery
`☐ Via Express Delivery
`☐ Via First Class Mail
`☒ Other: Email Notification
`of Availability for Download
`
`Petitioners Samsung and Sony Ex-1026, 0006
`
`