US Gov. Attorney Looking for Quick Dismissal of Case Vs. Ninestar. (see the latest)

[jim]

US Gov. Attorney Looking for Quick Dismissal of Case Vs. Ninestar.
On January 18, 2024, the judge held a hearing on the motion for preliminary injunction and heard the oral arguments of both parties. The judge also asked both parties to submit supplemental briefs and responses on some of the issues that he raised during the hearing, such as the validity of the UFLPA, the evidence of forced labor, and the impact of the decision on the consumers and the environment. The judge also asked both parties to provide a list of the additional authorities that they cited at the hearing, and to explain their relevance and significance. The judge said that he needed more time to review the evidence and the arguments, and to write his opinion. He said that he would issue his decision as soon as possible, but he did not give a specific date.

These Tonernews.com documents are the supplemental briefs and responses, and the list of additional authorities, that the parties filed on January 25, 2024, in response to the judge’s request. They are meant to supplement and clarify the arguments and the evidence that the parties presented in their previous briefs and at the hearing. They are also meant to persuade the judge to rule in their favor.

Letter to Court regarding authorities cited at hearing.
Filed by Cody Matthew Akins of Sidley Austin, LLP on behalf of All Plaintiffs. (Akins, Cody)
The first document is a letter to the court, filed by Cody Matthew Akins of Sidley Austin, LLP, on behalf of Ninestar and the other plaintiffs. The letter provides the list of the additional authorities that Akins cited at the hearing, and explains why they support Ninestar’s position. The letter also requests the court to grant Ninestar access to the confidential information in the administrative record, which the U.S. government has withheld from Ninestar under a protective order.

Confidential Supplemental Brief after hearing.
Filed by Cody Matthew Akins of Sidley Austin, LLP on behalf of All Plaintiffs.
The second document is a confidential supplemental brief, filed by Akins on behalf of Ninestar and the other plaintiffs. The brief addresses the issues that the judge raised during the hearing and argues that Ninestar is entitled to a preliminary injunction. The brief also responds to the arguments and the evidence that the U.S. government presented in its motion to dismiss and at the hearing. The brief is confidential because it contains sensitive information from the administrative record, which is subject to the protective order.

Supplemental Brief after hearing (public version).
Filed by Cody Matthew Akins of Sidley Austin, LLP on behalf of All Plaintiffs.
The third document is a public version of the supplemental brief, filed by Akins on behalf of Ninestar and the other plaintiffs. The brief is identical to the confidential one, except that it redacts the sensitive information from the administrative record, in accordance with the protective order.

Response to Court’s Request/Order For A List Of Additional Authority Identified At 1.18.24 Hearing.
Filed by Monica Perrette Triana of U.S. Department of Justice on behalf of All Defendants.
The fourth document is a supplemental response to the motion to dismiss, filed by Monica Perrette Triana of the U.S. Department of Justice, on behalf of the U.S. government and the other defendants. The response addresses the issues that the judge raised during the hearing and argues that the motion to dismiss should be granted. The response also responds to the arguments and the evidence that Ninestar presented in its motion for preliminary injunction and at the hearing.

Response to Court’s Request/Order For A List Of Additional Authority Identified At 1.18.24 Hearing.
Filed by Monica Perrette Triana of U.S. Department of Justice on behalf of All Defendants.
The fifth document is a response to the court’s request for a list of additional authorities, filed by Triana on behalf of the U.S. government and the other defendants. The response provides the list of the additional authorities that Triana cited at the hearing and explains why they support the U.S. government’s position. The response also requests the court to enter an amended protective order, which would limit Ninestar’s access to the confidential information in the administrative record and impose stricter conditions on its use and disclosure.

[Author]

January 26, 2024 at 4:10 PM