On May 6, ALJ David P. Shaw issued Order No. 17 granting Complainant Neptun Light Inc. and Andrezj Bobel’s (collectively, “Neptun”) motion to compel discovery from Respondent Satco Products, Inc. (“Satco”) in Certain Compact Fluorescent Reflector Lamps, Products Containing Same and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-872).
According to the Order, Neptun argued that Satco’s discovery responses “improperly limit the scope of discovery to the Satco product identified in the Complaint,” and that Satco should be ordered to provide responses that “properly reflect the scope of discovery.” Satco responded that (1) Neptun’s “discovery demand is ambiguous and undefined as written,” (2) the “demand seeks information related to products that are outside the scope of the Investigation,” and (3) Neptun “failed to make a reasonable good faith effort to resolve the discovery dispute.” Noting his previous order that discovery was not limited to only the specific products identified in the complaint, but appropriately extends to all “compact fluorescent reflector lamps, products containing same and components thereof” imported and/or sold in the U.S., ALJ Shaw granted the motion.