Denying Complainants' Motion for Reconsideration and for Leave to Rely on Certain Evidence in Support of Their Domestic Industry

Regarding Order 28, the ALJ finds no clear error in the finding that as of the close of fact discovery Complainants had only specified an intent to rely on TPL’s investments to support complainants’ domestic industry claims.

…Additionally, in their response to the motion to compel, which was filed after the close of fact discovery, Complainants described their domestic industry allegations in detail without specifically indicating any reliance on PDS’s or Patriot’s expenditures. Accordingly, the ALJ declines to reconsider Order 28

Regarding Order 38, the ALJ also finds that Complainants have not identified any clear error that warrants reconsideration. The ALJ found the production and identification of documents related to legal expenses was insufficient to retract Complainants’ multiple previous unequivocal statements that they would not be relying on legal expenses.

Regarding Complainants’ claim of unfairness, Complainants made a tactical decision before this Investigation began to rely exclusively on TPL’s investments to support their domestic industry claims. By deciding to forego reliance on domestic investments by PDS and Patriot, it can only be assumed that Complainants’ felt TPL’s investments were more than sufficient to meet the domestic industry requirements.