On April 6, 2012, ALJ E. James Gildea issued Order No. 32 granting Respondents Elpida Memory, Inc. and Elpida Memory (USA) Inc.’s (collectively, “Elpida”) motion to compel Complainants to provide discovery relating to their domestic industry assertions in Certain Dynamic Random Access Memory And NAND Flash Memory Devices And Products Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-803).

According to the Order, Elpida argued that Complainants made specific allegations regarding domestic industry in the Amended Complaint but have not fully responded to Elpida’s domestic industry discovery requests.  In response, Complainants asserted that they provided “extensive and voluminous” discovery relating to their domestic industry licensing activity, and that the motion contains the same deficiencies as Elpida’s earlier motion regarding the same subject matter.

ALJ Gildea noted that Elpida’s motion was filed prior to issuance of Order No. 24 which denied Elpida’s previous motion to compel production of documents relating to domestic industry (see our March 13, 2012 post for more details); however, unlike its previous motion, Elpida’s current motion made it possible to determine what discovery requests are at issue and what relief is warranted.  The ALJ also observed that Complainants did not appear to contest the relevance or appropriateness of Elpida’s requests, and was not persuaded that Complainants’ response, regardless of alleged volume, was complete.  Accordingly, ALJ Gildea granted the motion and ordered Complainants to provide full and complete, non-privileged responses to Elpida’s requests for production and interrogatories relating to Complainants’ domestic industry allegations set forth in the Amended Complaint.