On June 9, 2014, ALJ Dee Lord issued Order No. 18 in Certain Television Sets, Television Receivers, Television Tuners, and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-910).
According to the Order, Complainant Cresta Technology Corporation (“Cresta”) moved to compel Respondents Silicon Laboratories Inc., Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. (collectively, the “Respondents”) to respond to Cresta’s Interrogatories. The interrogatories are directed to a variety of topics, including the Respondents’ corporate structure, technical information about the accused products, and details regarding the development, manufacture, and importation of the accused products. Cresta argued that in Respondents’ initial responses to the interrogatories, Respondents agreed to produce documents containing the requested information but have repeatedly failed to supplement the responses to identify documents from which the requested information can be ascertained. Cresta also argued that the information requested was relevant and within the scope of discovery.
Respondents argued that the motion should be denied because it was filed in violation of Ground Rule 4.1.1 and that Respondents’ responses to certain interrogatories were never specifically discussed during Discovery Committee Conferences or during separate meet and confers. Respondents also argued that Cresta’s motion was moot because Respondents had agreed to supplement the responses by June 9, 2014.
ALJ Lord rejected Respondents’ argument that the motion should be denied for failure to comply with Ground Rule 4.1.1 because, while certain interrogatories may not have been specifically discussed during Discovery Committee Conferences or other meet and confer conferences, Respondents were aware that Cresta was requesting supplemental interrogatory responses to identify documents for all of the interrogatory responses that relied on Commission Rule 210.29(c). ALJ Lord found that Respondents’ initial responses to the interrogatories did not identify any documents or contain “sufficient detail” as required by Commission Rule 210.29(c). ALJ Lord also noted that Respondents had almost three months to supplement the deficient responses yet failed to do so and that such delay was inexcusable. Accordingly, ALJ Lord granted the motion.