UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
`WASHINGTON, D.C.
`
`Before the Honorable Theodore R. Essex
`
`In the Matter of
`
`Certain Stainless Steel Products, Certain
`Processes for Manufacturing or Relating to Same
`and Certain Products Containing Same
`
`Inv. No. 337-TA-933
`
`
`
`VALBRUNA’S OBJECTIONS TO THE DISCLOSURE OF VALBRUNA CONFIDENTIAL
`BUSINESS INFORMATION TO RESPONDENTS’ EXPERT CONSULTING WITNESS
`CARLO MAPELLI
`
`
`
`Pursuant to paragraph 11 of Order No. 1, Complainants1 submit the following objections
`
`to the disclosure of Valbruna’s confidential business information to Carlo Mapelli, a consulting
`
`expert for Respondents.2 Professor Mapelli worked as an expert for Respondents prior to this
`
`Investigation and continues to serve in that capacity. Valbruna also objects because the
`
`Commission cannot enforce sanctions against Professor Mapelli if he breaches the protective
`
`order. For the reasons set forth below, Valbruna asks the Court to sustain these objections.3
`
`I.
`
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND
`
`
`
`
`
`A.
`
`Italian Proceedings
`
`Three separate criminal and civil proceedings in Italy are relevant to Valbruna’s
`
`objections. The first case was against Giancarlo Zausa, the former Valbruna employee who stole
`
`and transferred Valbruna’s trade secrets to Viraj. See Complaint ¶¶ 47-65, 72. The second case
`
`1 Complainants are Valbruna Slater Stainless, Inc. (“VSSI”), Valbruna Stainless Inc. (“VSI”), and Acciaierie
`Valbruna S.p.A. (“Valbruna Italy”) (collectively, “Complainants” or “Valbruna”).
`2 Respondents are Viraj Profiles Limited (“Viraj India”), Viraj – U.S.A., Inc. (“Viraj US”), Flanschenwerk Bebitz
`GmBH (“Bebitz Germany”), Bebitz Flanges Works Pvt. Ltd. (“Bebitz India”), Bebitz U.S.A. (“Bebitz US”), Ta
`Chen International, Inc. (“Ta Chen US”) and Ta Chen Stainless Steel Pipe Co., Ltd. (“Ta Chen Taiwan”)
`(collectively “Respondents”).
`3 Respondents unilaterally declared the parties at an impasse over this issue on April 2 and demanded that Valbruna
`lodge its objections with the Court by 5:00 p.m. on April 6. See Attachment 1. Valbruna has done so to avoid
`further burdening the Court and notwithstanding the fact that April 5 was Easter Sunday and April 6 is a holiday in
`Italy. However, if the Court prefers, Valbruna will proceed according to Ground Rules 3.2 and 3.5.
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`concerns Viraj and Viraj’s General Manager, Rahul Suri, see Complaint ¶ 73, and the third
`
`includes Neeraj Kochhar, Viraj’s Chairman and Managing Director and Dhruv Kochhar,
`
`Bebitz’s Managing Director. Professor Mapelli participated in the first case for Mr. Zausa, see
`
`Attachment 2 at 20 n.33, and in the second and third cases for Respondents. See Attachments 1
`
`and 3.
`
`
`
`
`
`B.
`
`ITC Proceedings
`
`On November 19, 2014, Respondents disclosed Professor Richard Fruehan as an expert
`
`witness in metallurgy. See Attachment 4. Valbruna did not raise any objections to Dr. Fruehan
`
`and Valbruna even made a one-time extraordinary accommodation for him so he could work
`
`during his winter vacation.4 On February 6, 2015 Respondents identified Dr. Fruehan as an
`
`expert witness pursuant to the deadline set forth in the procedural schedule. See Attachment 5.
`
`Dr. Fruehan has access to all of Valbruna’s confidential information.
`
`
`
`Long after the deadline for identifying expert witnesses, Respondents disclosed Professor
`
`Mapelli on March 13 as a consulting expert to whom Respondents intended to provide Valbruna
`
`confidential business information, including the highly sensitive information governed by the
`
`Amended Protective Order. See Attachment 6. On March 23, Valbruna timely objected to
`
`Professor Mapelli based on his ongoing work for Respondents and for failing to provide a
`
`detailed employment history. See Attachment 7. Respondents ran the ten day clock for the
`
`
`4 Valbruna gave Dr. Fruehan access to highly confidential information subject to the Amended Protective Order
`(Order No. 6) from a secure room in his winter residence in Florida. The Amended Protective Order applies to
`Confidential Operating Practices which are defined as “documents (whether in printed or electronic form)
`memorializing a Private Party’s production process for producing stainless steel, including, but not limited to the
`precise quantity and mix of inputs and processing times and temperatures.” Order No. 6 ¶ 18.
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`parties to informally resolve the dispute, see Order No. 1 ¶ 11, by waiting until the tenth day to
`
`
`
`respond.5 See Attachment 1A.
`
` II. LEGAL STANDARD
`
`
`
`Paragraph 3 of the Protective Order provides that confidential business information shall
`
`not be disclosed to, among others, “consultants to . . . a non-governmental party . . . .” See Order
`
`No. 1 ¶ 3. Technical experts have regularly been prohibited from receiving confidential business
`
`information when they serve as a consultant to a party. See, e.g., Certain Semiconductor
`
`Integrated Circuits Using Tungsten Metallization and Products Containing Same, Inv. No. 337-
`
`TA-648, Order No. 59 at 3-4 (prohibiting expert from receiving confidential information when
`
`he was a consultant to a non-party that was owned by a respondents) (Mar. 25, 2009); Certain
`
`Absorbent Garments, Inv. No. 337-TA-508, Order No. 17 (Aug. 20, 2004) (acknowledging that
`
`“a consultant to a private party is prohibited from receiving confidential information under the
`
`protective order.”); Certain Automobile Tail Light Lenses and Products Incorporating Same,
`
`Inv. No. 337-TA-502, Order No. 7 (June 9, 2004) (“Thus, disclosure of confidential business
`
`information cannot ordinarily be made to technical experts who are employed by, consultants to,
`
`or otherwise affiliated with a non-governmental party[] .”) (internal quotes removed).
`
`
`
`Technical experts must not receive a party’s confidential information when they can use
`
`information that they cannot unlearn to their advantage:
`
`The key to getting under the protective order usually is not whether you are an
`expert in the technology but whether you will learn something under the
`protective order that you cannot forget, and that you may use to your benefit in
`the future, regardless of whether you intend to use it. Some information that an
`expert learns simply cannot be forgotten. This information may be used by the
`expert in his own work inadvertently, simply because he is aware of certain facts
`
`
`5 Indeed, Respondents took seven days to simply acknowledge Valbruna’s objections and confirm that Professor
`Mapelli performs ongoing work for Respondents and will continue to do so in the future. See Attachments 1 and 3.
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`that he otherwise would not have known, and even though he does not intend to
`violate the protective order.
`
`Certain Memory Devices with Increased Capacitance and Products Containing Same, Inv. No.
`
`337-TA-371, Order No. 19 at 2 (Apr. 27, 1995); see also Certain Set-Top Boxes and
`
`Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-454, Order No. 6 at 6 (May 17, 2001) (noting analogous
`
`situation of barring attorneys from prosecuting patents because an individual cannot unlearn
`
`information even when acting in the best of faith).
`
`
`
`The Commission has refused access by foreign experts to confidential business
`
`information when the supplier objected. See Certain Sortation Systems, Parts Thereof, and
`
`Products Containing Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-460, Order No. 9 (Nov. 20, 2001); see also Certain
`
`DC-DC Controllers and Products Containing the Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-698, Order No. 11
`
`(Apr. 1, 2010); Certain Flooring Products, Inv. No. 337-TA-443, Order No. 9 (Mar. 6, 2001).
`
`“It must be demonstrated, however, that a person who has access to CBI can be held accountable
`
`to the Commission for any impermissible disclosure, whether intentional or inadvertent.”
`
`Certain DC-DC Controllers and Products Containing the Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-698, Order
`
`No. 11 at 3 (internal citation omitted).
`
`III. VALBRUNA’S OBJECTIONS
`
`Professor Mapelli Cannot Unlearn Valbruna’s Confidential Information
`A.
`Valbruna objects to the disclosure of Valbruna confidential business information to
`
`
`
`Respondents’ consulting expert because Professor Mapelli, who has an active, ongoing
`
`relationship with Respondents for which he is being compensated, see Attachments 1 and 3,
`
`cannot unlearn Valbruna’s information. Professor Mapelli worked for Mr. Zausa in the first
`
`Italian case, see Attachment 2 at 20 n.33, and for Respondents in the second and third Italian
`
`cases. See Attachments 1 and 3. Evidencing Professor Mapelli’s intimate relationship with
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`

`
`
`
`Respondents and a corresponding lack of professional detachment is his testimony for
`
`Respondents in the second Italian case. Professor Mapelli testified that the presence of technical
`
`documents available inside Valbruna’s facility – in the location where they were being used –
`
`meant they were not secret. See Attachment 2 at 24 n.38. The Italian court publicly discredited
`
`that testimony.6 See id. In previous ITC investigations, individuals who have had an ongoing
`
`employment relationship with a party have been precluded from receiving confidential business
`
`information. See Certain Semiconductor Integrated Circuits Using Tungsten Metallization and
`
`Products Containing Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-648, Order No. 59 at 3-4; Certain Absorbent
`
`Garments, Inv. No. 337-TA-508, Order No. 17 (Aug. 20, 2004); Certain Automobile Tail Light
`
`Lenses and Products Incorporating Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-502, Order No. 7 (June 9, 2004).
`
`Giving Professor Mapelli access to Valbruna’s confidential business information will cause
`
`substantial harm to Valbruna because he cannot unlearn it and he has worked and continues to
`
`work for Respondents.
`
`
`
`Professor Mapelli will have significantly less access to Valbruna confidential information
`
`in the Italian proceedings than he will have in this Investigation. But once Professor Mapelli
`
`learns something from Valbruna’s Operating Practices or other Valbruna technical records, he
`
`cannot unlearn it. Criminal trials for Neeraj Kochhar, the Chairman and Managing Director of
`
`Viraj and Dhruv Kochhar, the Managing Director of Bebitz are scheduled to begin in September
`
`2015. The Italian court will develop its own record, independent of the record of this
`
`Investigation. Indeed, the nature and extent of technical and other information that forms the
`
`record in the Italian proceedings will differ significantly from the record of this Investigation.
`
`
`6 From 2013 Valbruna withdrew from the Associazione Italiana di Metallurgia (Professor Mapelli is President) in
`protest over his opinions which showed a transparent disregard of the truth in favor of arriving at the conclusion
`Respondents were paying him to reach.
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`For example, in the earlier Italian proceedings concerning Viraj and Viraj’s Managing
`
`Director, Rahul Suri, Valbruna produced 1 Operating Practice and emails between Mr. Zausa and
`
`Viraj.7 In contrast, Valbruna has produced 49 Operating Practices in this Investigation, all of
`
`which are subject to the heightened protections of the Amended Protective Order, and hundreds
`
`of thousands of pages of technical documents and financial information under the Protective
`
`Order. Nearly all of the information Valbruna has produced in this Investigation was not (and
`
`will not be) part of the record of the Italian proceedings. While it is true that Professor Mapelli
`
`had access to a single Valbruna Operating Practice and emails between Mr. Zausa and Viraj,
`
`Professor Mapelli did not have access to any other Valbruna confidential business information,
`
`nor will he have such access in the future Italian proceedings.8
`
`
`
`The Protective Order specifies that confidential business information is to be used “solely
`
`for the purposes of this investigation.” Order No. 1 ¶ 4. It is well-established that information
`
`once learned, cannot be unlearned and that this serves as a basis for precluding experts from
`
`having access to confidential information. See Certain Memory Devices with Increased
`
`Capacitance and Products Containing Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-371, Order No. 19 at 2 (Apr. 27,
`
`1995); see also Certain Set-Top Boxes and Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-454, Order
`
`No. 6 at 6 (May 17, 2001). Even if Professor Mapelli had the best intentions not to use
`
`Valbruna’s confidential business information, he simply could not forget what he learned.
`
`
`
`Respondents will not be prejudiced if Professor Mapelli does not have access to
`
`Valbruna’s confidential information. Respondents already have identified a technical expert who
`
`has access to all of Valbruna’s confidential business information and the deadline for identifying
`
`additional expert witnesses has passed. Further, Professor Mapelli can serve as a consulting
`
`
`7 Rahul Suri was Viraj’s Managing Director when the events in question occurred.
`8 Professor Mapelli also found a fragment of a Valbruna Operating Practice dating from 1998 on the internet.
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`expert for Respondents even if he does not have access to Valbruna’s confidential business
`
`information. To the extent Respondents need a second technical expert to have access to
`
`Valbruna’s confidential information, nothing is stopping them from using someone who does not
`
`already work for Respondents.
`
`B.
`
`Professor Mapelli Is Immune from the Effectiveness of any Sanctions for
`Breach
`Professor Mapelli’s is not a U.S. resident and he does not have any ties to the United
`
`
`
`States. See Attachment 1. Based on a review of the information Respondents have made
`
`available and of EDIS, Professor Mapelli has not appeared before the ITC and he does not have
`
`experience safeguarding confidential business information in a United States proceeding under
`
`the equivalent of an ITC protective order.9 In view of the fact that Professor Mapelli has never
`
`appeared before the ITC, is unlikely to appear again, and lacks any ties to the United States, the
`
`ITC would be unable to enforce sanctions against Professor Mapelli for breach of the Protective
`
`Order and Amended Protective Order in this Investigation. Under these circumstances, the
`
`Commission has denied a foreign expert access to confidential business information. See
`
`Certain Sortation Systems, Parts Thereof, and Products Containing Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-460,
`
`Order No. 9 (Nov. 20, 2001); see also Certain DC-DC Controllers and Products Containing the
`
`Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-698, Order No. 11 (Apr. 1, 2010); Certain Flooring Products, Inv. No.
`
`337-TA-443, Order No. 9 (Mar. 6, 2001). The disclosure of Valbruna’s confidential business
`
`information under such circumstances should not be permitted because it is likely to impair the
`
`Commission’s ability to obtain information that is necessary to perform its statutory functions.
`
`
`9 Respondents allege that Professor Mapelli has experience with non-disclosure agreements. See Attachment 1.
`Valbruna submits that such experience is inapposite to knowing what is required to comply with the Protective
`Order and Amended Protective Order.
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`

`
`
`
`IV. CONCLUSION
`
`
`
`Valbruna respectfully requests that the Court sustain the above objections and preclude
`
`Professor Mapelli from having access to Valbruna’s confidential business information. In the
`
`alternative and at minimum, Valbruna asks the Court to prohibit Professor Mapelli from having
`
`access to any highly-sensitive information subject to the Amended Protective Order.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`WHITE & CASE LLP
`
`
`
`
`
`By: /s/ Gregory J. Spak
`Gregory J. Spak
`701 13th Street, NW
`Washington, DC 20005
`(202) 626-3600
`
`Dimitrios T. Drivas
`Stefan M. Mentzer
`WHITE & CASE LLP
`1155 Avenue of the Americas
`New York, NY 10036
`(212) 819-8200
`
`Frank Morgan
`TRADE LAW DEFENSE PLLC
`218 North Lee Street, Third Floor
`Alexandria, VA 22314
`(703) 493-0188
`
`Counsel for Valbruna
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: Washington, DC
`
`April 6, 2015
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`

`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I, Anthony Ferrara, hereby certify that the attached VALBRUNA’S OBJECTIONS TO
`
`THE DISCLOSURE OF VALBRUNA CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION TO
`RESPONDENTS’ EXPERT CONSULTING WITNESS CARLO MAPELLI has been
`served as indicated, on April 6, 2015.
`
` 
`
` Via Hand Delivery
` Via Express Delivery
` Via First Class Mail
` Via Email
` Via Hand Delivery
` Other: EDIS
`
` 
`
` Via Hand Delivery
` Via Express Delivery
` Via First Class Mail
` Via Email
` Via Hand Delivery
` Other: _______
`
` 
`
` Via Hand Delivery
` Via Express Delivery
` Via First Class Mail
` Via Email
` Via Hand Delivery
` Other: ____________
`
` 
`
` Via Hand Delivery
` Via Express Delivery
` Via First Class Mail
` Via Email
` Via Hand Delivery
` Other: ____________
`
` 
`
`On Behalf of the Commission:
`
`The Honorable Lisa R. Barton
`Secretary to the Commission
`U.S. International Trade Commission
`500 E Street, SW
`Washington, D.C. 20436
`
`On Behalf of the Administrative Law Judge:
`
`Honorable Theodore R. Essex
`Administrative Law Judge
`U.S. International Trade Commission
`500 E Street, SW
`Washington, D.C. 20436
`
`Tamara.Foley@usitc.gov
`John.Kaplan@usitc.gov
`
`On Behalf of Respondents Viraj Profiles
`Limited, Viraj Holdings P. Ltd., Viraj –
`U.S.A., Inc., Flanschenwerk Bebitz GmbH,
`Bebitz Flanges Works Pvt. Ltd., Bebitz
`U.S.A.,Ta Chen International, Inc., and Ta
`Chen Stainless Steel Pipe Co., Ltd.:
`
`Jeremy Dutra
`Peter Koenig
`SQUIRE PATTON BOGGS (US) LLP
`1200 19th Street, N.W., Suite 300
`Washington, D.C. 20036
`itcvalbruna@squirepb.com
`
`Steven M. Auvil
`John J. Thuermer
`SQUIRE PATTON BOGGS (US) LLP
`4900 Key Tower, 127 Public Square
`Cleveland, OH 44114
`itcvalbruna@squirepb.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`

`
`
`
` Via Hand Delivery
` Via Express Delivery
` Via First Class Mail
` Via Email
` Via Hand Delivery
` Other: ____________
`
` 
`
` Via Hand Delivery
` Via Express Delivery
` Via First Class Mail
` Via Email
` Via Hand Delivery
` Other: ____________
`
` 
`
` Via Hand Delivery
` Via Express Delivery
` Via First Class Mail
` Via Email
` Via Hand Delivery
` Other: ____________
`
`Amanpreet Kaur
`SQUIRE PATTON BOGGS (US) LLP
`600 Hansen Way
`Palo Alto, CA 94304
`itcvalbruna@squirepb.com
`
`James B. Altman
`Barbara A. Murphy
`Kandis C. Gibson
`FOSTER, MURPHY, ALTMAN & NICKEL
`PC
`1899 L Street, Suite 1150
`Washington, D.C. 20036
`Telephone: (202)-822-4100
`Facsimile: (202) 822-4199
`fm-viraj-933@fostermurphy.com
`
`On Behalf of the Commission Investigative
`Attorney:
`
`Reginald Lucas
`Office of Unfair Import Investigations
`U.S. International Trade Commission
`500 E Street, S.W.
`Washington, D.C. 20436
`Reginald.Lucas@usitc.gov
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Anthony Ferrara
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`Attachment 1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Frank Morgan
`
`From:
`Sent:
`To:
`
`Cc:
`Subject:
`
`ITC Service
`Thursday, April 02, 2015 5:06 PM
`Frank Morgan (fmorgan@tradelawdefense.com); W&C Valbruna Team
`(WCValbrunaTeam@whitecase.com)
`Reginald.Lucas@usitc.gov; ITC Service; fm-viraj-933@fostermurphy.com
`RE: Inv. No. 337-TA-933, Mapelli Objection
`
`Frank, 
` 
`Respondents view a number of your “requests” for additional information for Dr. Mapelli as beyond what the 
`Protective Order and Commission Rules require, but will provide responses to your inquiries so as to avoid 
`unnecessary disputes over an individual who already had been granted access to the Valbruna Operating 
`Practices asserted in this Investigation. 
` 
`You are correct that Dr. Mapelli served—and we understand will continue to serve—as a technical expert 
`witness for Viraj during the Italian proceedings.  Apart from his role as an expert in the Italian proceedings, Dr. 
`Mapelli has not performed any other work for or on behalf of Viraj or any of the other Respondents.  We do 
`not understand why you are requesting Dr. Mapelli’s compensation as an expert during the Italian 
`proceedings—and do not see how you are entitled to such information.  Regardless, Dr. Mapelli’s expert 
`services were billed to Viraj through Viraj’s Italian counsel.  We understand that counsel’s invoices were not 
`itemized, thus we are not able to provide Dr. Mapelli’s compensation in connection with the expert services 
`he provided on behalf of Viraj during the Italian proceedings. 
` 
`Dr. Mapelli only served as an expert witness in the Italian proceedings involving Viraj and Mr. Suri.  There are 
`no other declarations, expert reports, depositions, or trial experience to note.   
` 
`With regard to the “Supported Companies” section of Dr. Mapelli’s CV, please note the following:    
` 
`
` Forgiatura Mamè, Forgiatura Monchieri (2011‐2013): Responsible for R&D concerning forging of 
`special carbon steels from heavy ingots (weight >80t) and computational simulation of forging 
`activities. 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` Lucchini: Consultant for installation of a mini‐mill for the production of strips and plates. 
`
` Riva Acciaio: Provided fiscal‐centric consulting for the evaluation of energy saving in the use of gas and 
`electricity; performed failure analysis for Riva Acciaio products. 
`
`
`
`ILVA: Provided fiscal‐centric consulting for the estimation of the goods involved in the economic yearly 
`balance; elaborated on a plan for reducing environmental impact. 
`
` ASO Siderurgica: Provided assistance for a lawsuit about scrap rubbery; conducted fluid dynamics 
`simulation relating to forging.  
`
` AST Arvedi, ATA  Arved: Conducted thermal simulation and improvements of the mechanical 
`properties of low‐carbon steel strips produced by in‐line rolling. 
`1
`
`

`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` Eureinox: Assisted with supplier selection and organizing the check line of the wiredrawing lines.   
`
` Fiat Iveco: Conducted failure analysis activity on truck shafts. 
`
` Feralpi Group: Assisted with inertization of the Electric Arc Furnace Slag.   
`
` Techint‐Tenova: Created a thermodynamic model for the control of the electric arc furnace working 
`modalities.   
`
` Ferriere Nord: Conducted research about the measurement of carbon concentration in steel baths.   
`
` Acciaieria Bertoli Safau: Conducted a simulation about the new innovative plant for the in‐line rolling 
`of high size blooms (>750mm).   
`
` Metra: Assisted with the extrusion of aluminium alloys. 
`
` VAI‐Siemens: Assisted with construction of a computational model to control the heat treatment of the 
`rails.  
`
` Dillingen Huette: Conducted research about nano‐precipitates in heavy plates during continuous 
`casting. 
`
` NMKL Group: Assisted with a solution pertaining to the surface defects on heavy plates. 
`
` McKinsey: Assisted with designing of industrial plan of ILVA.   
`
` Barberi & Biagetti: Performed work for Sapre (a die casting company in Gorla Minore) and Vetroscala 
`(in Zibido San Giacomo). 
`
` Mendolia and Partners: Performed work for ASO Siderurgica (Scrap rubbery in Ospitaletto‐ITALY (BS)), 
`Fonderia Zardo (trial about fiscal savings about energy issues), and Riva Acciaio (fiscal savings about the 
`use of the electricity in the steel shop in Verona). 
`
` 
`With regard to work associated with Studio Barbieri & Biagetti and Partners, Berenghi and Partners, and 
`Mendolia & Partners, please note the companies on whose behalf Dr. Mapelli worked:   
` 
`
` Berenghi and Partners: Consulted about fiscal aspects involving the ILVA Group plants.   
`
` 
`With regard to Dr. Mapelli’s work while he was the President of the AIM, we note that Dr. Mapelli’s only 
`contact with a Valbruna representative occurred in 2002 when the steelmaking director of Valbruna (Mr. 
`Alghisi) asked Dr. Mapelli to allow him to present a scientific paper by Valbruna about an ESR plant.   At that 
`time, Prof. Nicodemi – President of AIM – accepted the presentation of the scientific paper. 
` 
`Dr. Mapelli has not had any contact with the United States.   
` 
`
`2
`
`

`
`Dr. Mapelli has experience observing non‐disclosure agreements in connection with the companies he has 
`supported. 
` 
`Given Respondents’ complete response to your inquiries, the absence of any conflicts of interest, and Dr. 
`Mapelli’s previous access to Valbruna’s Operating Practices, we anticipate that Valbruna immediately will 
`withdraw its objection to disclosing confidential information to Dr. Mapelli.  If Valbruna has any remaining 
`objections, we expect Valbruna to raise them with Judge Essex by no later than 5:00 p.m. on April 6. 
` 
`Sincerely, 
` 
` John Thuermer
`T +1 216 479 8765
`M +1 216 333 5282
`
`
`  
`
`From: ITC Service
`Sent: Monday, March 30, 2015 9:27 PM
`To: 'Frank Morgan'; wcvalbrunateam@whitecase.com; reginald.lucas@usitc.gov
`Cc: ITC Service; FM-Viraj-933@fostermurphy.com
`Subject: RE: Inv. No. 337-TA-933, Mapelli Objection
` 
`Frank, 
` 
`The Respondents understand your email to be an objection pursuant to Paragraph 11 of the Protective 
`Order.  As an initial matter, we are surprised that Valbruna objects to Dr. Mapelli’s disclosure given that he has 
`already been given access to Valbruna’s CBI—he has reviewed Valbruna’s Operating Practices and toured 
`Valbruna’s manufacturing facilities.  See, e.g., Public Compl., Ex. 9 at 20.  We also note that, as you know, Dr. 
`Mapelli has served, is serving, and will serve as an expert for Bebitz/Viraj in the Italian Proceedings, for which 
`he is being compensated.  Nonetheless, to help resolve Valbruna’s objections, Squire is working on obtaining 
`additional information in response to the inquiries you raised and will provide this information as soon as 
`possible. 
` 
`Sincerely, 
` 
` John Thuermer
`T +1 216 479 8765
`M +1 216 333 5282
`
`
`  
`
`From: Frank Morgan [mailto:fmorgan@tradelawdefense.com]
`Sent: Monday, March 23, 2015 5:01 PM
`To: Gallagher, Rebecca M.; wcvalbrunateam@whitecase.com; reginald.lucas@usitc.gov
`Cc: ITC Service; FM-Viraj-933@fostermurphy.com
`Subject: RE: Inv. No. 337-TA-933, In the Matter of Certain Stainless Steel Product
` 
`Counsel, 
`
`  
`Based on the information provided in Respondents’ March 13, 2015 disclosure, Valbruna objects to the disclosure of 
`confidential information to Carlo Mapelli. 
`
`3
`
`

`
`  
`
`Our understanding is that Professor Mapelli served as an expert witness for at least one of the Respondents in one or 
`more of the Italian proceedings.  Please confirm whether Professor Mapelli continues to serve, or will serve in the 
`future, in any capacity on behalf of the Respondents in any of the Italian proceedings.  Please also describe any other 
`work Professor Mapelli has performed, in any capacity, for any of the Respondents.  Please also describe any 
`compensation and/or other benefits Professor Mapelli has received from any of the Respondents including but not 
`limited to in connection with the defense of Viraj and/or Mr. Suri. 
`
`  
`Please describe the work Professor Mapelli provided to the companies listed in the “Supported Companies” section of 
`his CV. 
`
`  
`Please identify the companies on whose behalf Professor Mapelli worked for with Studio Barbieri & Biagetti and 
`Partners, Berenghi and Partners, and Mendolia & Partners and describe the work that was performed. 
`
`  
`Please provide a complete listing of testimony, sworn or unsworn, provided by Professor Mapelli in any jurisdiction, 
`including but not limited to declarations, expert reports, depositions, and trial. 
`
`  
`Please describe Professor Mapelli’s previous work and/or relationship with Valbruna while he was the President of the 
`AIM or in any other capacity. 
`
`  
`Please confirm whether Professor Mapelli has any contact with the United States and, if so, please describe the nature 
`of the contact. 
`
`  
`Please describe Professor Mapelli’s experience safeguarding confidential materials subject to a protective order. 
`
`  
`Thanks. 
`
`  
`From: Gallagher, Rebecca M. [mailto:rebecca.gallagher@squirepb.com]  
`Sent: Friday, March 13, 2015 4:41 PM 
`To: wcvalbrunateam@whitecase.com; 'Frank Morgan (fmorgan@tradelawdefense.com)'; 'reginald.lucas@usitc.gov' 
`Cc: ITC Service; FM‐Viraj‐933@fostermurphy.com 
`Subject: Inv. No. 337‐TA‐933, In the Matter of Certain Stainless Steel Product 
`
`  
`Re:       Inv. No. 337‐TA‐933 
`            In the Matter of Certain Stainless Steel Products, Certain Processes For Manufacturing Or Relating To 
`Same And Certain Products Containing Same 
` 
` 
`Counsel, 
` 
` 
`Please see the attached letter from Jeremy Dutra. 
` 
` 
`Best regards, 
`Becky 
`  
`
` 
`
`Rebecca M. Gallagher
`Paralegal 
`Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP 
`4900 Key Tower 
`127 Public Square 
`Cleveland, Ohio 44114 
`T +1 216 479 8386 
`O +1 216 479 8500 
`F +1 216 479 8780 
`
`4
`
`

`
`M +1 216 632 0443 
`Rebecca.Gallagher@squirepb.com | squirepattonboggs.com
`
`  
`
`
`---------------------------------------------------------------------
`44 Offices in 21 Countries
`
`This message is confidential and may be legally privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure. If you are
`not the intended recipient, please telephone or email the sender and delete this message and any attachment
`from your system; you must not copy or disclose the contents of this message or any attachment to any other
`person.
`
`Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP is part of the international legal practice Squire Patton Boggs, which operates
`worldwide through a number of separate legal entities. Please visit www.squirepattonboggs.com for more
`information.
`
`#US
`---------------------------------------------------------------------
`
`5
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`Attachment 2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`[handwrittenz] 212
`[stampz] ORIGINAL
`
`[Republic of Italy crest]
`
`No. 250/14 Rulings Reg.
`
`REPUBLIC OF ITALY
`
`No. I33/I I General Reg.
`
`IN THE NAME OF THE ITALIAN PEOPLE
`
`No. I 939/07 General
`
`Register of Crimes
`
`COURT OF VICENZA — Criminal Section
`
`RULING
`
`Monocratic composition in the person of
`
`The Hon. Paolo VELO
`
`In the public hearing of March 6, 2014
`
`On 03/06/2014
`
`Pronounced and published, by reading of the operative section, the following
`RULING
`
`Filed at the CW” clerk ,S
`ofiice today, 03/06/2014
`
`(Art. 544, par. 3, Italian Code of Criminal Procedure)
`
`In the proceedings against:
`
`RAHUL JITRENDA SURI, born on 06/ 14/ 1972 in New Delhi (India), resident
`
`of Mu111bai — Juhu Tara Road — Jul1u 4 Vikas Park — domicile elected at the law
`
`Date ofirrevocability
`
`firm of Atty. A. Soliani in Milan, Via Besana, 4,
`
`Free — in default of appearance
`
`Civilly liable party: VIRAJ PROFILES LIMITED, in the person of its special
`
`On the day of
`
`representative, Vijayakumar Pillai, with its head office in India,
`
`In default of appearance
`Civil plaintiff, established on 02/19/2011: ACCIAIERIE VALBRUNA SPA, in
`
`the person of its pro tempore legal representative, with its head office in Vicenza,
`
`defended by Atty. Fabio Marzio Palazzo of the Milan Bar Association,
`
`Sent extract to Ofiice of
`the Public Prosecutorfor
`execution
`
`No.
`
`No.
`
`No.
`
`Accused:
`
`OfLegal Costs Register
`
`On
`
`Records ofiice electronic
`form completed
`
`VALBRUNA00291905
`
`

`
`Rahul SURI:
`
`1.
`
`of the aggravated crime of violation of industrial secrets, an offence established and punished under Art.
`
`61, no. 7, and 110 — 623 of the Italian Criminal Code, for having, in multiple concrete actions within the
`
`same criminal design, instigated an employee of Valbruna SpA in Vicenza, Giancarlo Zausa (already
`
`brought to trial and sentenced separately in a ruling handed down on June 15, 2009), to provide Suri
`
`himself, the managing director of the Indian steelworks Viraj (or VSL Wires Ltd, with head offices in
`
`Germany and India), data and information concerning secret production processes to the detriment of
`
`Valbrtma SpA, which Zausa revealed to him — responding by email to the specific requests se11t to him by
`
`the Indian competitor “Viraj” — thereby obtaining information protected by industrial secrecy, and
`
`specifically:
`
`0
`
`0
`
`0
`
`0
`
`0
`
`0
`
`0
`
`0
`
`information on the production cycle for paper clips (three emails of 09/12/2006, at 11:23 A.M., 4:59
`
`P.M., and 9:45 PM),
`
`information on AISI 304 qualities (email of 09/ l 1/2006, with an attached VALZACT analysis),
`
`information on the mechanical properties and on the chemical composition and nickel content in the
`
`AIS R4B (email of 09/11/2006 at 3:18 A.M., containing an analysis relative to AIS R4B),
`
`information on the HRAP 9.5 dia./8 mm wire rod AISI 201 (email of 09/18/2006 containing the
`
`info