`
`Washington, D.C.
`
`
`
`In the Matter of
`
`CERTAIN PICK-UP TRUCK FOLDING
`BED COVER SYSTEMS AND
`COMPONENTS THEREOF (III)
`
`
`
`
` Inv. No. 337-TA-1353
`
`ORDER NO. 31:
`
`
`
`
`GRANTING COMPLAINANTS’ UNOPPOSED MOTION TO
`CONTINUE STAY OF THE PROCEDURAL SCHEDULE;
`GRANTING COMPLAINANTS’ AND STAFF’S JOINT MOTION
`TO INCREASE PAGE LIMITS
`
`(September 11, 2023)
`
`On September 8, 2023, Complainants Extang Corporation, Laurmark Enterprises, Inc.
`
`d/b/a BAK Industries, and UnderCover, Inc.’s (“Complainants”) filed a motion (1353-025) to
`
`continue the stay of the procedural schedule pending a decision on Complainants’ forthcoming
`
`motion for summary determination on violation and for recommended determination on remedy
`
`and bonding (“MSD”). Complainants certify that the Commission Investigative Staff (“Staff”)
`
`does not oppose the motion. Also on September 8, 2023, Complainants and Staff filed a joint
`
`motion (1353-026) for leave to increase the page limits for Complainants’ forthcoming MSD and
`
`Staff’s response thereto.
`
`On July 26, 2023, the undersigned granted Complainants’ initial motion to stay the
`
`procedural schedule (Order No. 7) until September 15, 2023. See Order No. 21. Now,
`
`Complainants seek to continue the stay of all upcoming procedural deadlines pending a decision
`
`on their forthcoming MSD, which they state will be filed no later than October 6, 2023. Mot.
`
`1353-025 at 1. Complainants submit that good cause exists to continue the stay because all
`
`named respondents have either been terminated based on settlement and/or consent orders or
`
`
`
`have been found in default. Id. at 2. Complainants contend that “[g]ranting a continued stay will
`
`promote efficiency in this investigation, allowing Complainants to focus their resources on filing
`
`a motion for summary determination and relief requested in their amended complaint, which will
`
`include a request for a general exclusion order.” Id. Complainants also assert that the requested
`
`stay will have no adverse effect on any party or on the investigation’s proceedings since all
`
`respondents have been terminated. Id. In addition, stays of the procedural schedule have been
`
`granted in similar circumstances in previous investigations. See, e.g., Certain Arrowheads with
`
`Arcuate Blades and Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-1033, Order No. 8, EDIS Doc. ID
`
`613366, at 1 (June 5, 2017) (granting motion to stay pending resolution of complainant’s
`
`forthcoming motion for summary determination seeking a general exclusion order).
`
`There being no opposition and for good cause shown, the motion (1353-025) is hereby
`
`GRANTED. The procedural schedule shall be stayed pending a decision on Complainants’
`
`forthcoming motion for summary determination on violation.
`
`As to the joint motion, Complainants and Staff seek to increase the page limit for
`
`Complainants’ forthcoming MSD from 50 pages (excluding exhibits) to 100 pages (excluding
`
`exhibits) and to increase the page limit for Staff’ response to Complainants’ MSD from 50 pages
`
`(excluding exhibits) to 100 pages (excluding exhibits). Mot. 1353-026 at 1. Complainants and
`
`Staff assert that good cause exists for the increase in page limits because it “will allow parties to
`
`address all relevant issues and submit the required ‘substantial, reliable, and probative evidence’
`
`required by Section 337 in the absence of a hearing in which such evidence could be submitted.”
`
`Id. In addition, they submit that “much of the evidence is in pictorial format and otherwise
`
`difficult to convey through citations or textual summary thereof.” Id.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`There being no opposition and for good cause shown, the motion (1353-026) is hereby
`
`GRANTED. Complainants’ forthcoming motion for summary determination is limited to 100
`
`pages (excluding exhibits) and Staff’s response thereto is limited to 100 pages (excluding
`
`exhibits).
`
`SO ORDERED.
`
`
`
`
`
`Monica Bhattacharyya
`Administrative Law Judge
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
