UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
`Washington, D.C. 20436
`
`Before the Honorable Delbert R. Terrill
`Administrative Law Judge
`
`In the Matter of
`
`1
`CERTAIN PLASTIC MOLDING MACHINES
`WITH CONTROL SYSTEMS HAVING
`)
`PROGRAMMABLE OPERATOR INTERFACES
`)
`1
`INCORPORATING GENERAL PURPOSE
`COMPUTERS, AND COMPONENTS THEREOF I1 )
`)
`
`. .
`
`Investigation No. 337-TA-462
`
`2 >
`
`MOTION TO AMEND THE
`PROCEDURAL SCHEDULE
`
`Pursuant to Commission Rule 21 0.15, Complainant Milacron Inc. (“Milacron”)
`
`respectfully moves for an Order amending the Procedural Schedule as set forth in Exhibit A
`
`hereto. As the Court is aware, with the most recent Joint Motion to Terminate by
`
`Settlement filed by Milacron and the Side1 Respondents, all of the named Respondents in
`
`the present action have settled with Milacron in the form of confidential license agreements
`
`under Milacron’s ‘052 Patent. Milacron believes that the most appropriate manner to
`
`submit the remaining case to the Court for completion would be in the form of a Motion for
`
`Summary Determination of Violation and For General Exclusion Order (the “Motion for
`
`Determination”). In this regard, while Milacron remains more than willing to present a
`
`tutorial and/or all of the information to support the Motion for Determination in the form of
`
`exhibits, witnesses and explanation via the usual filings and oral hearing, the case can be
`
`

`
`fully documented and presented in the form of motion pleadings thereby minimizing the
`
`imposition on this Court’s time and hearing schedule, and streamlining completion of this
`
`case in the form of written submissions. As such, the contemplated Motion for
`
`Determination would be in lieu of an oral hearing and its attendant filings. Milacron
`
`respectfully submits that the proposed schedule, whereby Milacron would present its
`
`motion and supporting documentation by May 17,2002, and the Commission Staff would
`
`submit its response and documentation by May 30 (as would any remaining respondents if
`
`they choose), will allow for a focused and succinct completion of the investigation and
`
`should be granted. The Staff has indicated its general agreement with this proposed format
`
`and schedule, and plans to file its own comments and positions regarding the
`
`appropriateness of consideration of the requested general exclusion order in its own filings.
`
`As set forth below in further detail, the only remaining portion of the present
`
`investigation is presentation of Milacron’s request for the issuance of a General Exclusion
`
`Order as originally set forth in Milacron’s complaint in the present action (e.g., see Section
`
`G, paragraph 74-83, and Section X, paragraphs 94 and 95). Including the present
`
`complaint, Milacron has already filed three complaints with the ITC with respect to the
`
`subject patent, and it is expected that continued and expanded infringing activities by
`
`foreign manufacturers will increase in the coming months and years as non-licensed
`
`companies attempt to gain an improper competitive advantage in the United States. The
`
`underlying principles, rules and regulations of the ITC, as well as the relevant case law,
`
`support the appropriateness of consideration and grant of a General Exclusion Order under
`
`the facts of the present case. The Order would avoid the necessity of further successive
`
`- 2 -
`
`

`
`complaints being brought before the Commission for each newly discovered infringer,
`
`would conserve the Commission’s resources, and would serve to protect the rights of
`
`Milacron and its licensees under the ‘052 Patent.
`
`I.
`
`Milacron Should Be Permitted to Show Why a General Exclusion Order Is
`Appropriate
`A.
`
`ITCpolicies favor investigating the merits of a general exclusion order in
`
`this case.
`
`Sound policy of the ITC supports the appropriateness of Milacron’s case for a general
`
`exclusion order. First, ITC policy favors that complainants and respondents reach settlement
`
`with respect to Section 337 disputes.’ This policy conserves the resources of complainants,
`
`respondents, and the Commission. If the presence of a remaining respondent in a case were a
`
`prerequisite for the pursuit of a general exclusion order, then a complainant seeking a general
`
`exclusion order would be essentially required to force at least one respondent, otherwise
`
`willing to settle, to remain in the case. The case would be continued against that sacrificial
`
`respondent merely to meet a technical requirement of having a named respondent remain for a
`
`general exclusion order to be obtained. Under such a scenario, resources of the complainant,
`
`the respondent, and the ITC would be wasted as the parties proceed through depositions,
`
`document production, expert discovery, rebuttal exhibits and reports, etc. simply to meet
`
`formal requirements.
`
`Indeed, the cases where respondents are most likely to settle are those in which the
`
`complainant is holding a strong patent and has a strong case of violation against the
`
`1 Indeed, the Scheduling Orders in this case require three separate pre-hearing settlement conferences.
`
`- 3 -
`
`

`
`respondents.
`
`If such cases meet the general exclusion order requirements, then the
`
`complainant should be entitled to a general exclusion order regardless of how quickly
`
`respondents settle out. However, if a named respondent must remain for a general exclusion
`
`order to be pursued, then these strong cases, which may in fact be more deserving than others
`
`where respondents oppose the complainant all the way to a hearing, could rarely result in the
`
`issuance of a general exclusion order due to increased pressures leading respondents to
`
`settlement.
`
`Importantly, in the leading general exclusion case of Certain Airless Paint Spray Pumps
`
`and Components Thereof, the Commission stated that a U.S. patentee should not be compelled
`
`to file a series of complaints against several individual foreign manufacturers as it becomes
`
`aware of their products in the United States. Such a practice, the Commission noted, would
`
`waste the resources of the complainant as well as burden the Commission with redundant
`
`investigations. Spray Pumps, 216 U.S.P.Q. at 473. With respect to Milacron’s ‘052 Patent, it
`
`is becoming clear that, in the absence of a general exclusion order here, Milacron will be
`
`forced to file just such a costly series of successive complaints. Already, Milacron has had to
`
`file three complaints in the ITC relating to this patent. The current complaint included four
`
`foreign manufacturers of plastics processing machinery, while the previous complaints each
`
`involved single respondent parties. Milacron has significant evidence that other foreign
`
`manufacturers have begun or will soon begin to manufacture and export to the United States
`
`products which appear to be covered by Milacron’s patent.’
`
`2 In fact, Milacron is preparing a motion to present this evidence promptly to the Judge.
`
`- 4 -
`
`

`
`Due to the nature of the plastic processing machines involved herein, including their
`
`expensive price tag and the often confidential customer relationships between a manufacturer
`
`and purchaser, investigation of infringing activities is time-consuming, difficult, and often only
`
`possible long after the fact of importation and installation. Each time infringement is
`confirmed by Milacron, Milacron should not have to file a new complaint in the ITC, because,
`
`as pointed out in Spray Pumps, such a process is wasteful of the resources of Milacron and
`
`creates a burden on the Commission. Accordingly, it would be most efficient if Milacron was
`
`permitted to seek a general exclusion order in this case to obtain protection from all potential
`
`foreign infringers through this current Investigation, which has proceeded nearly completely
`
`through discovery. The policy considerations which were considered in Spray Pumps weigh
`
`heavily in favor of allowing Milacron to proceed to present its case for the issuance of a
`
`general exclusion order.
`
`B.
`
`Nothing in the ITC Rulesprohibits a complainant from proceeding with an
`
`investigation in the absence of remaining named respondents.
`With respect to termination, 19 C.F.R. 3 21 0.21 states that “any party maymove at any
`
`time for an order to terminate an investigation in whole or in part as to any or all respondents
`on the basis of settlement, a licensing or other agreement . . . .” (emphasis added).
`
`Accordingly, this regulation expressly contemplates that an investigation can be terminated “in
`
`part” but need not be completely terminated. This section states that an investigation can be
`
`terminated “in part” as to “all respondents.” It would seem that one of the main purposes for
`
`such a scenario would be for the complainant to obtain appropriate relief that is independent
`
`of the presence of named respondents in the case. A general exclusion order is undoubtedly
`
`- 5 -
`
`

`
`one form of such relief that is contemplated by the Rules as a remedy that is available to
`
`complainants and that is inherently independent of the presence of respondents in the case. No
`
`cases have been located where the judge or the Commission refused to consider the issues of
`
`violation and remedy based upon the fact that all the respondents had settled with the
`
`complainant, and certainly none of the ITC Rules appear to preclude such a scenario.
`
`Moreover, common sense strongly supports completion of this investigation to consider the
`
`facts which support issuance of a general exclusion order now.
`
`In addition, with respect to an initial determination, 19 C.F.R. 0 2 10.42 reads "Unless
`
`otherwise ordered by the Commission, the administrative law judge shall certify the record to
`
`the Commission and shall file an initial determination on whether there is a violation of
`section 337 . . . " Moreover, with respect to the recommended determination of remedy, that
`same section reads "Unless the Commission orders otherwise, within 14 days after issuance of
`
`the initial determination on violation of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, the
`
`administrative law judge shall issue a recommended determination containing findings of fact
`
`and recommendations concerning - (A) the appropriate remedy in the event the Commission
`finds a violation of section 337, and (B) the amount of the bond to be posted . . .I' Finally,
`regarding the Commission's action, 19 C.F.R. 0 210.50 states "During the course of each
`
`investigation under this part, the Commission shall - 1) Consider what action (general or
`
`limited exclusion of articles from entry or a cease and desist order, or exclusion of articles
`
`from entry under bond or a temporary cease and desist order), if any, it should take, and, when
`
`appropriate, take such action." This language does not make the active presence of a
`
`respondent a prerequisite for filing of an initial determination, for filing of a recommended
`
`- 6 -
`
`

`
`determination by the Administrative Law Judge, or for the Commission to make a
`
`determination as to what action it should take.3 Consequently, appropriate relief should be
`
`available regardless of whether all respondents have settled out or defaulted in the case.
`
`By its very nature, a general exclusion order inherently contemplates a remedy reaching
`
`beyond named respondents in a case, and the fact that the ITC has the authority to issue such
`
`an order is derived from the agency’s basic jurisdictional foundation. In particular, the ITC is
`
`not bound by “case or controversy” requirements to which Article I11 courts are bound.
`
`Rather, the basis of jurisdiction in the ITC is “in rem” and the presence or absence of
`
`respondents cannot affect such jurisdiction. This principle was clarified by the Commission in
`
`Metal Cutting Snips where the Commission stated that it may act on the strength of its in rem
`
`jurisdiction even in the absence of in personam jurisdiction. Certain Compound Action Metal
`
`Cutting Snips and Components Thereof, 337-TA-197, Notice of Initial Determination
`
`Terminating Respondent on the Basis of Settlement Agreement, 1985 WL 303604 at “33
`
`(April 18, 1985). In fact, the predecessor to the Federal Circuit court has stated the following
`
`regarding this in rem power of the ITC:
`
`An exclusion order operates against goods, not parties. Accordingly, that
`order was not contingent upon a determination of personal or ‘in personam’
`jurisdiction over a foreign manufacturer. The Tariff Act of 1930 (Act) and its
`predecessor, the Tariff Act of 1922, were intended to provide an adequate
`remedy for domestic industries against unfair methods of competition and
`unfair acts instigated by foreign concerns operating beyond the in personam
`jurisdiction of domestic courts. See In re Orion Co., 22 CCPA 149, 163,71
`F. 2d458,467,21 USPQ 563,571 (1934). Authorityto provide suchremedy
`is grounded in Congress’ plenary constitutional power to regulate foreign
`commerce, a portion of which power Congress delegated to the ITC under 19
`U.S.C. s 1337. That Congress has wide discretion concerning procedures for
`
`3 The Commission has in the past been willing to take appropriate action against defaulting respondents.
`
`- 7 -
`
`

`
`barring imports has been judicially confirmed in numerous cases. Sealed Air
`Cow. v. USITC, 645 F.2d 976,985 (CCPA 1981).
`
`The present investigation is a classic case where strong evidence of widespread
`
`infringing activities by foreign companies is supported, inter alia, by the fact that there are
`
`numerous parties (including all Respondents herein) which have now settled with Milacron
`
`and/or taken licenses under Milacron's '052 Patent which is the subject of this investigation.
`
`Milacron also believes that the Commission should use its in rem jurisdiction to stop further
`
`widespread infringing activities via a general exclusion order.
`
`C.
`
`Evidence regarding terminated respondents 'products can be considered in
`
`determining whether a general exclusion order is appropriate.
`
`Administrative Law Judges and the Commission have properly looked at evidence
`
`concerning the products of absent and settled respondents in determining whether a
`
`widespread pattern of violation has occurred and, accordingly, whether a general exclusion
`
`order is appropriate. For example, in the Magnets case, a consent order was signed by some of
`
`the respondents which included a statement that the agreement was in settlement of the charges
`
`and did not constitute an admission by the respondents that the law had been violated. See
`
`Certain Neodvmium-Iron-Boron Magnets, Magnet Alloys, and Articles Containing the Same,
`
`Inv. No. 337-TA-372, Order No. 29 (Sept. 4, 1995). The Commission, nevertheless, stated
`
`that there was evidence that
`
`of the
`
`eight respondents sold infringing products.
`
`337-TA-372, Notice of Issuance of General Exclusion Order and Cease and Desist Order and
`
`Termination of Investigation, 1996 WL 1056324 at "1 1 (May 1996).
`
`- 8 -
`
`

`
`Likewise, in Connecting Computers, the Commission found that there was a
`
`widespread pattern of unauthorized use which justified the issuance of a general exclusion
`
`order based on “evidence in the record indicating that all eighteen of the named respondents
`
`have imported the accused products into the United States.” Certain Devices for Connecting
`
`Computers Via Telephone Lines, 337-TA-360, 1994 WL 932382 at *5 (Dec., 1994). At the
`
`time of the issuance of the general exclusion order, sixteen of the eighteen respondents had
`
`signed settlement agreements and had been approved for termination from the investigation by
`
`the Commission based on those settlement agreements, while the remaining two had already
`
`been found to infringe based upon a summary determination motion by the complainant which
`had not been contested by any respondent. Id. at * 1-2.
`
`Indeed, the Commission has explicitly stated that “when determining the proper
`
`recommendation for a remedy, it is appropriate for the administrative law judge to consider
`
`evidence regarding respondents who have been terminated from the investigation on the basis
`
`of Consent Orders.” Certain Two-Handle Faucets and Escutcheons, and Components Thereof,
`
`Inv. No. 337-TA-422, Commission Notice of Issuance of General Exclusion Order,
`
`Termination of Investigation, 2000 WL 1159298 at “39 (June 19, 2000). No distinction
`
`should be drawn between respondents who have terminated based upon consent orders and
`
`those, such as in the present case, who have terminated based upon settlement agreements.
`
`Accordingly, not only is it appropriate to permit Milacron to proceed in its case seeking
`
`a general exclusion remedy, but the ITC has on a number of occasions considered the issues of
`
`violation and remedy where no respondents have opposed the complainant’s evidence.
`
`Moreover, the ITC has considered the products of respondents who had already been
`
`- 9 -
`
`

`
`terminated from the case in determining whether a widespread pattern of violation had
`
`occurred and thus whether a general exclusion order was appropriate. Here, all named
`
`Respondents have settled and taken licenses, but there is significant evidence that a continuing
`
`widespread pattern of infringement here justifies the remedy of a general exclusion order.
`
`D. A case where all respondents have settled and taken licenses should be
`
`treated no differently than default cases where all respondents default.
`
`Respondents need not actively oppose the complainant for the issues of violation and
`
`remedy to be considered. In the leading general exclusion order case of Certain Airless Paint
`
`Spray Pumps and Components Thereof, the judge permitted the complainant to present
`
`evidence regarding infringement by the respondents even after the respondents failed to make
`
`an appearance in the case to contest the complainant’s allegations. Jnv. No. 337-TA-90,216
`
`USPQ 465, 467-68 (Nov. 24, 1981). More specifically, the Commission set forth factors
`
`which are now frequently cited to determine the propriety of a general exclusion order at issue.
`
`These factors include whether a widespread pattern of unauthorized use of the patented
`
`invention is present and whether certain business conditions are present from which one might
`
`infer that non-respondents may attempt to enter the US market with infringing articles. Id. at
`
`473. The Commission did not appear to be troubled by the absence of the named respondents.
`
`Milacron is fully prepared to submit substantial evidence which makes it readily apparent that
`
`these general exclusion factors are present in this case.
`
`Similar to Spray Pumps in which the merits for general exclusion were considered
`
`where all respondents had defaulted, in Certain Devices for Connecting Computers Via
`
`Telephone Lines, the Administrative Law Judge heard evidence presented in the form of a
`
`- 10-
`
`

`
`summary judgment motion as to the issues of violation and remedy, even though 16 of the 18
`
`respondents had settled and the two remaining respondents did not file a response to the
`
`motion. Connecting Computers, Inv. No. 337-TA-360, Initial Determination on Motion for
`
`Summary Judgment, 1994 WL 929932 at "1
`
`(May 24, 1994). After considering the
`
`appropriate remedy, the Commission issued a general exclusion order. Connecting
`
`Computers, Inv. No. 337-TA-360, Notice of Issuance of General Exclusion Order, December,
`
`1994,1994 WL 932382 at *2,5 (Dec. 1994).
`
`Likewise, in Certain Compact Multipurpose Tools, a motion for summary
`
`determination was filed by the complainant showing that its patents had been infringed and
`
`that a general exclusion order should be granted. Inv. No. 337-TA-416, Final Initial and
`
`Recommended Determination, pg. 2 (May 27,1999). Only the staff responded to the motion,
`
`and the Commission adopted the judge's recommendation and found that a general exclusion
`
`order was appropriate. Notice of Issuance of General Exclusion Order and Termination of
`
`Investigation, 1999 WL 1136903 at "1-2, 4-5 (Aug. 30, 1999). The absence of opposition
`
`from a named respondent was not problematic.
`
`Similarly, in Certain Neodymium-Iron-Boron Magnets, Magnet Alloys, and Articles
`
`Containing the Same, Inv. 337-TA-372, the complainant filed a prehearing statement, but no
`
`other party filed any prehearing statements or submitted any proposed evidentiary exhibits.
`
`Inv. 337-TA-372, Final Initial and Recommended Determinations, 1995 WL 1049833 at "2
`
`(Dec. 1 1 , 1995). The judge proceeded to make an initial determination that a violation had
`
`occurred, that a domestic industry was present, and that a general exclusion order was
`appropriate. a. at "9-1 1. The Commission agreed with the judge's recommendation. Notice
`
`- 11 -
`
`

`
`of Issuance of General Exclusion Order and Cease and Desist Order and Termination of
`
`Investigation, 1996 WL 1056324 at "9-10, 12 (May, 1996).
`
`As another example, in Certain Tape Dispensers, the complainant filed a motion for
`summary determination of violation of 0 337, which was not opposed by any respondent.
`
`Tape Dispensers, Inv. No. 337-TA-354, Notice of Issuance of General Exclusion Order, 1994
`
`WL 93 1668 at "3 (June, 1994). Upon considering the unopposed motion, the ALJ issued an
`initial determination that there was a violation of 8 337. The Commission determined not to
`
`review that initial determination and found that the proper relief was a general exclusion order
`directed to all tape dispensers infringing the design patent at issue. Id. at "3-5.
`
`Thus, as shown by Spray Pumps, Connecting Computers, Multipurpose Tools,
`
`Magnets, and Tape Dispensers, a respondent need not be present to oppose the complainant's
`
`evidence in order for a violation of Section 337 to be found and a general exclusion order to be
`
`issued.
`
`11.
`
`Summary
`
`Accordingly, Milacron should be permitted to complete this investigation by setting
`
`forth its evidence as to how a violation has occurred and why a general exclusion order is
`
`appropriate in this case. As set forth above, nothing in the ITC rules prohibits the
`
`consideration of a general exclusion order following the settlement by license of each named
`
`respondent. Milacron believes that the factors set forth in the Spray Pumps case will show the
`
`propriety of such a general exclusion order in this case. Moreover, ITC policies favor
`
`investigating the merits of a general exclusion order in this case, and in completing the
`
`investigation efficiently such that Milacron is not forced to bring successive complaints as
`
`- 12-
`
`

`
`each new defendant is identified. Moreover, appropriate application of existing ITC rules and
`
`policies supports the view that the ITC should complete this Investigation and the analysis of
`
`factors here in support of the issuance of a general exclusion order without requiring
`
`inefficient further successive complaints on Milacron’s ‘052 Patent, and/or contradicting the
`
`policy favoring settlement. If rebuffed here, Milacron will be required to file yet another ITC
`
`complaint and then refuse settlement or otherwise require a settling respondent to remain in
`
`the case in order to pursue a full and appropriate adjudication and remedy. Finally, this case,
`
`where all respondents have settled by license under the Milacron ‘052 Patent, should not be
`
`handled differently than the many cases where all respondents have defaulted, yet the ITC has
`
`completed the investigation and considered the factors for issuance of a general exclusion
`
`order.
`
`Milacron has presented a proposed plan herein to modify the procedural schedule to
`
`accommodate a motion which would present all support necessary to prove such violation and
`
`appropriateness for a general exclusion order.
`
`For the reasons set forth above, the parties respectfully request that the revised
`
`schedule set forth in the attached proposed Order be adopted.
`
`-13-
`
`

`
`If for any reason the present Motion is denied, because it is believed that this
`
`matter involves important Commission policy, Milacron respectfully requests that any
`
`such denial be certified to the Commission promptly.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`On behalf of Complainant Milacron Inc.
`
`Jeffrey R. Schgfer
`John V. Harmeyer
`Martin J. Miller
`DINSMORE & SHOHL LLP
`1900 Chemed Center
`255 East Fifth Street
`Cincinnati, OH 45202
`(513) 977-8200
`
`Cecilia H. Gonzalez, Esq.
`Bert C. Reiser, Esq.
`Margaret D. Macdonald, Esq.
`Howrey Simon Arnold & White, LLP
`1299 Pennsylvania Avenue, N. W.
`Washington, DC 20004
`
`780496~12
`
`- 14-
`
`

`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I, Erika Weinstein, hereby certify that copies of MOTION TO AMEND THE
`PROCEDURAL SCHEDULE were served this 18th day of April 2002, as follows:
`
`The Hon. Marilyn R. Abbott
`Secretary
`U.S. International Trade Commission
`500 E Street, SW, Room 112
`Washington, DC 20436
`
`Hon. Delbert R. Terrill, Jr.
`Administrative Law Judge
`U S . International Trade Commission
`500 E. Street, SW, Suite 317
`Washington, DC 20436
`
`Rett V. Snotherly, Esq.
`U.S. International Trade Commission
`500 E. Street, SW, Suite 401
`Washington, DC 20436
`
`Original plus six copies by hand
`
`Two copies by hand
`
`e
`
`One copy by hand
`
`On Behalf of Respondents Sidel SA and Sidel,
`Inc.
`
`Mark Boland
`Sughrue, Moin, Zinn, Macpeak & Seas, PLLC
`2 100 Pennsylvania Avenue, N. W.
`Suite 800
`Washington, DC 20037
`
`Sturgis M. Sobin
`Miller & Chevalier, Chartered
`655 Fifteenth Street, N.W.
`Suite 900
`Washington, DC 20005
`
`One copy by hand
`
`One copy by hand
`
`Erika J.
`
`einskein "ii
`
`

`
`EXHIBIT A
`
`EXHIBIT A
`
`

`
`UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
`Washington, D.C. 20436
`
`Before the Honorable Delbert R. Terrill
`Administrative Law Judge
`
`In the Matter of
`
`)
`)
`)
`CERTAIN PLASTIC MOLDING MACHINES
`)
`WITH CONTROL SYSTEMS HAVING
`)
`PROGRAMMABLE OPERATOR INTERFACES
`)
`1
`INCORPORATING GENERAL PURPOSE
`COMPUTERS, AND COMPONENTS THEREOF I1 )
`1
`
`Investigation No. 337-TA-462
`
`ORDER NO.
`
`By this Order, I hereby amend Order No. 5 (and subsequent Orders 10, 14, 15
`
`and 23) to establish the following briefing schedule for Complainant’s Motion for
`
`Summary Determination of Violation and For General Exclusion Order:
`
`Milacron to submit its Motion
`
`May 17,2002
`
`Staff to submit its Reply to Motion May 30,2002
`
`Accordingly, the following Procedural Schedule is now in effect:
`1 Joint Discoverv Statement
`1 October 1. 2001
`First Settlement Conference
`October 4,2001
`Report of First Settlement Conference
`October 9,2001
`Identification of Expert Witnesses
`November 27.2001
`Second Settlement Conference
`December 14,2001
`Report of Second Settlement Conference
`December 17.2001
`Tentative List of Witnesses
`March 22,2002
`Identification of Prior Art to be Relied UDon
`March 1.2002
`Initial Expert Reports, Tests, Surveys, etc.
`December 21,2001
`Rebuttal Expert Reports
`March 29, 2002
`
`

`
`~~ Ami1 1.2002
`April 18,2002
`May 1,2002
`March 8, 2002
`March 12,2002
`Reserved *
`
`Fact Discovery Cutoff
`ExDert Discoverv Cutoff
`Last Day for Motions to Compel Discovery
`Third Settlement Conference
`Third Settlement Report
`Direct Exhibits
`- Complainant’s/Respondents’
`- Staff
`Pre-hearing Statements and Briefs
`- Complainant’ s/Respondents’
`- Staff
`~ Regs. for Receipt of Evidence Without
`Witness
`Obiections to Direct Exhibits
`Rebuttal Exhibits
`Objections to Rebuttal Exhibits
`Joint Narrative Statement of the Issues
`Tutorial
`Pre-hearing Conference
`Hearing
`Post-hearing Briefs, Proposed Findings of
`Fact, Conclusions of Law, Final Exhibit List
`Post-hearing: Redv Briefs
`Closing Arguments
`Milacron to Submit Motion for
`Determination of Violation and General
`Exclusion Order and Exhibits
`Staff to Submit Reply to Milacron Motion
`for Determination of Violation and General
`Exclusion Order
`hitial Determination Date
`Completion of Investigation
`* date removed as unnecessary for completion of investigation
`
`Reserved *
`Reserved *
`Reserved *
`Reserved *
`Reserved *
`Reserved *
`Reserved *
`Reserved *
`Reserved *
`Reserved *
`Reserved *
`Reserved *
`May 17,2002
`
`May 30,2002
`
`SO ORDERED.
`
`Issued: April -,
`
`2002
`
`780512~1
`
`Delbert R. Terrill, Administrative Law Judge
`
`- 2 -