Makita Corp. v. US
Citation | 819 F. Supp. 1099 |
Decision Date | 01 April 1993 |
Docket Number | Court No. 93-02-00114. |
Parties | MAKITA CORPORATION, Makita U.S.A., Inc., and Makita Corporation of America, Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES of America, and United States Department of Commerce, Defendants. |
Court | U.S. Court of International Trade |
Verner, Liipfert, Bernhard, McPherson and Hand, Chartered, Kathleen H. Hatfield, Washington, DC, for plaintiffs.
Stuart E. Schiffer, Acting Asst. Atty. Gen., David M. Cohen, Director, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civ. Div., U.S. Dept. of Justice, Jeffrey M. Telep, Office of the Chief Counsel for Import Admin., U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Linda Andros, Washington, DC, of counsel, for defendants.
This is another case which raises issues of unusual sensitivity, including the propriety of judicial intervention in on-going administrative proceedings, protection of confidential information, effective assistance of counsel in the absence of access to such information and the interaction of attorneys in zealously representing the competing interests of the clients, to quote from Hyundai Pipe Co. v. U.S. Dep't of Commerce, 11 CIT 238, 1987 WL 8807 (1987).
Before the ITA acted on the request for amendment, signatories of the July 9, 1992 application left Dorsey & Whitney for the law firm Stroock & Stroock & Lavan, along with Mr. Bayz and their client Black & Decker. A new application for a protective order was submitted and granted, followed by another request for inclusion of the firm's new associate.
On February 17, 1993, after more than six months of repeated opposition by Makita, the ITA determined to grant Mr. Bayz access to the confidential information submitted by that respondent corporation per the following reasoning:
This case then commenced, and, after immediate oral argument from both sides on plaintiffs' proposed order to show cause, the court granted a temporary restraining order, pending formal response by the defendants and a full hearing on plaintiffs' application for a preliminary injunction. Such a hearing has been held, at the conclusion of which the defendants consented to extension of the restraining order until this decision.
In 1988, Makita U.S.A., Inc. and Makita Corporation of America filed a complaint with the U.S. International Trade Commission ("ITC"), alleging unfair methods of competition and unfair acts in the importation of articles into the United States within the meaning of 19 U.S.C. § 1337. See Certain Electric Power Tools, Battery Cartridges and Battery Chargers, 53 Fed.Reg. 31,112 (Aug. 17, 1988). Counsel for the complainants were Bell, Boyd & Lloyd, who had had Panagiotis C. Bayz in their employ as a paralegal since May 1986.
According to an affidavit submitted in the matter now before the ITA by Mr. Bayz, he began law school in August 1988, subsequent to which he was a "part-time law clerk with Bell, Boyd & Lloyd from January 1989 to April 1990 and ... a summer associate from May to July, 1989." He states that, during those months at the firm, he worked with William A. Zeitler and other attorneys on the section 1337 complaint filed by Makita. An affidavit provided to the court in this case by Mr. Zeitler adds:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Amsted Rail Co. v. U.S. Int'l Trade Comm'n
...in NEC was the plaintiff's challenge to the agency's authority to bring the investigation. With the notable exceptions of Hyundai Pipe and Makita, discussed below, cases before the Court of International Trade that have proceeded on § 1581(i) jurisdiction have "all sought to stop an alleged......
-
Amsted Rail Co. v. United States Int'l Trade Comm'n
...in NEC was the plaintiff's challenge to the agency's authority to bring the investigation. With the notable exceptions of Hyundai Corp. and Makita, discussed below, cases before the Court of International Trade that have proceeded on § 1581(i) jurisdiction have "all sought to stop an allege......
-
Cisco Sys., Inc. v. United States
...a USCIT Rule 12(c) motion, because it was filed after an answer was interposed. Id. at 11–12 (citing Makita Corp. v. United States, 17 CIT 240, 243–44, 819 F.Supp. 1099, 1102–03 (1993)). Because Defendant's Motion to Dismiss was filed after the pleadings had closed,17 the court treats Defen......
-
Amsted Rail Co. v. United States Int'l Trade Comm'n
...subject matter of the representation. It will not inquire into their nature and extent. Makita Corp. v. United States, 17 CIT 240, 246, 819 F.Supp. 1099, 1105 (1993) (quoting T.C. Theatre Corp. v. Warner Bros. Pictures, 113 F.Supp. 265, 268-69 (S.D.N.Y. 1953)). Plaintiffs have not demonstra......
-
Avoiding the Pitfalls: Ethical Interviewing for Lawyers and Law Firms
...Wash. 2000) (using Washington Rules of Professional Conduct [WRPC] 5.3 to apply WRPC 1.10 to nonlawyer employees); Makita Corp. v. U.S., 819 F Supp. 1099, 1104 (CIT 1993) (holding that Model Rule 5.3 requires courts to apply the same ethical standards to nonlawyer employees); Smart Industri......