CIT's Judge Vaden to Hold Oral Argument on Consent Motion Filed Without Consent
The Court of International Trade is set to have an in-person oral argument on Oct. 26 about the U.S.'s submission of a "consent" motion for leave to add a document to the administrative record but which actually did not have the consent of the plaintiffs, led by Grupo Simec. Judge Stephen Vaden will preside over the hearing to determine whether consent was given to the motion by the plaintiffs (Grupo Simec v. United States, CIT #22-00202).
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
Vaden previously oversaw a hearing in a separate case over a similar predicament -- plaintiff Cheng Shin Rubber Ind. Co.'s misrepresentation that the U.S. consented to a statutory injunction motion that the government did not in fact consent to. During litigation and a hearing over the issue, Vaden offered intense scrutiny of the situation, suggesting during the proceeding that sanctions were on the table. Eventually, the judge dropped the prospect of sanctioning the conduct, accepting terms from Winton & Chapman that included updating office procedures to make sure consent requests are not sent out at the last minute, mandating at least two more lawyers review court filings before submission, and requiring all attorneys to review Rule 3.3 of the D.C. Bar's Rules of Professional Responsibility and D.C. Bar opinions on the attorneys' duty of candor.
In Grupo Simec's case, it was the U.S. that filed the consent motion without securing the consent of the other parties.