On September 23, 2011, ALJ Robert K. Rogers, Jr. issued Order No. 9: Granting Complainant’s Motion To Compel in Certain Light-Emitting Diodes and Products Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-798).
According to the Order, Complainant Samsung LED Co., Ltd. (“SLED”) filed a motion to compel Respondents OSRAM GmbH, OSRAM Opto Semiconductors GmbH, OSRAM Opto Semiconductors Inc., and OSRAM Sylvania Inc. (collectively, “OSRAM”) to produce discovery regarding OSRAM’s customers. In support of the motion, SLED argued that it needed the discovery so that it could amend its complaint to add OSRAM’s downstream customers as respondents in this investigation. SLED further argued that the requested information was not publicly available and must be obtained from OSRAM. In addition, SLED noted in response to certain interrogatories on this subject, OSRAM recited Commission Rule 210.29(c) and only identified a single “unusable” document from its production – rather than providing a narrative response to the interrogatory. OSRAM opposed the motion and noted that it produced the requested information in a usable format. OSRAM further argued that its document production comported with the parties’ agreement to produce electronic documents in TIFF format.
In the Order, ALJ Rogers determined that “producing a 70-page TIFF image of a spreadsheet does not comply with Commission Rule 210.29(c).” ALJ Rogers further determined that “[a]s SLED has shown, obtaining information from such a document is difficult due to the miniscule text size, the large amount of information found on each sheet, and the inability to manipulate or sort the data.” ALJ Rogers also found that “OSRAM has not provided any justification regarding why it cannot either provide a narrative response to the interrogatories or produce the spreadsheets in their native format.” Accordingly, ALJ Rogers granted SLED’s motion to compel and ordered OSRAM to provide a narrative response to the subject interrogatories and otherwise produce spreadsheets in their native format.