United States Court of International Trade

Slip Op. 20-142

Before the Court in Novolipetsk Steel Public Joint Stock Co., et. al., v. United States, et. al., Slip Op. 20-142, Court No. 20-00031 (October 8, 2020) was a motion for stay and an extension of time by defendant intervenors, Nucor and Steel Dynamics, Inc. (“SDI”). On March 4, 2020 plaintiffs commenced the action by filing a summons and complaint. On May 18, 2020, all parties filed a joint status report and proposed briefing schedule, where defendant and defendant-intervenors, Nucor and SDI, noted their intention to move to dismiss at least a portion of the complaint.  However, defendant and defendant-intervenors consented to and included a proposed briefing schedule, which the court subsequently implemented. On the same day the briefing schedule was implemented, defendant-intervenors moved to dismiss plaintiffs’ complaint. Since that time no party moved to stay the briefing schedule for plaintiffs’ pending motion for judgment on the agency record. Twice, however, defendant and defendant-intervenors consented to plaintiff’s request for an extension of time to file a motion for judgement on the agency record. The motion was ultimately filed on August 10, 2020. On September 16, 2020, Nucor and SDI moved to stay all deadlines related to the merits pending final resolution of their motion to dismiss, which plaintiffs opposed.

“A court may properly determine that it is efficient for its own docket and the fairest course for the parties to enter a stay of an action before it, pending resolution of independent proceedings which bear upon the case.” Id. at 6. “However, if there is even a fair possibility that a stay will do damage to the opposing party, the movant must make out a clear case of hardship or inequity in being required to go forward.” Id. The Court said that entering a “stay now would be unfair to plaintiffs, since they have already expended resources preparing their motion for judgment on the agency record.” Id. at 7.  The Court noted that defendant-intervenors “untimely move to stay despite having ample opportunity to do so.” Id. at 6. As such the motion for a stay was denied. However, the Court did grant defendant-intervenors a seven day extension of time to file response briefs to the motion for judgement on the agency record.