On May 9, 2012, Chief ALJ Charles E. Bullock issued the public version of Order No. 51 (dated May 1, 2012) in Certain Digital Televisions and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-789).  In the Order, ALJ Bullock denied non-party Motorola Mobility, Inc.’s (“MMI”) motions to intervene for a limited purpose, to compel documents, and to postpone certain third-party depositions.

According to the Order, MMI sought the following relief:  (1) to require certain individuals to serve MMI with copies of documents they had already produced in the investigation; (2) to compel Respondents (and ex-employees) to return or destroy any privileged documents that MMI might identify within the document production; (3) to postpone the depositions of the ex-employees until Respondents and the ex-employees confirm that any privileged documents have been returned or destroyed; and (4) to allow MMI to attend any depositions of the individuals referred to above.  In particular, MMI argued that it should be permitted to intervene to prevent further disclosure of MMI’s privileged and confidential information.  According to the Order, MMI believed that the depositions should be postponed until MMI has the opportunity to review the document production and receives confirmation that any privileged documents have been destroyed.

Respondents Renesas Electronics Corp. and Renesas Electronics America, Inc. (collectively, “Renesas”) opposed the motions.  According to the Order, Renesas argued that counsel for the individuals referred to above had already provided documents to MMI and that MMI had already been informed that it may attend certain depositions.  Accordingly, Renesas argued that the only remaining issues were the return or destruction of potentially privileged documents and whether to postpone the depositions.  Renesas stated that it had requested MMI to review the documents for privilege by April 30, but that MMI had refused.  Further, Renesas claimed that in an effort to narrow the dispute, it had provided MMI with a list of 73 documents that Renesas may potentially use at the hearing, but that MMI had not responded.  Renesas therefore contended that because counsel for MMI had copies of the documents, was aware of the specific documents that Renesas intended to rely upon, and was free to attend the depositions, MMI’s interests were being adequately protected such that intervention was unwarranted.

After considering the arguments, ALJ Bullock determined to deny MMI’s motions.  The ALJ agreed with Renesas that MMI did not need to intervene in order to protect its interest in the documents.  According to the Order, given that MMI was in possession of the documents and already had permission to attend the depositions, MMI’s motion to intervene and motion to compel were moot.  ALJ Bullock therefore denied them as such.  Moreover, the ALJ found that since Renesas had narrowed the dispute to include only 73 documents, there was no reason why MMI could not promptly review those documents for privilege purposes.  Accordingly, ALJ Bullock denied MMI’s motion to postpone the depositions.