On March 6, 2014, ALJ E. James Gildea issued Order No. 26 (dated February 4, 2013) in Certain Silicon Microphone Packages and Products Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-888).

According to the Order, Complainant Knowles Electronics, LLC (“Knowles”) filed a motion to compel Respondents GoerTek, Inc. and GoerTek Electronics, Inc. (collectively, “GoerTek”) to designate individuals for corporate depositions on GoerTek’s document retention, document preservation, document destruction, and document collection practices.  Additionally, Knowles’ motion requested an order compelling GoerTek to supplement its response to Knowles’ Interrogatory No. 47 by identifying individuals knowledgeable about GoerTek’s document retention and destruction policies and practices.  Knowles argued that GoerTek’s corporate designee was not prepared to testify on these topics.  Furthermore, Knowles asserted that the information on document retention and destruction policies and practices is important based on deposition testimony allegedly showing that GoerTek destroyed certain documents.

In opposition, GoerTek argued that their corporate witness was knowledgeable on the topics of document retention and destruction policies and practices.  GoerTek further asserted that they adequately responded to Interrogatory No. 47.  GoerTek argued that Knowles “squandered its opportunity to question [their designated corporate witness] by asking vague questions followed by a memory test.”

ALJ Gildea denied Knowles’ request for further depositions because GoerTek’s corporate witness was adequately prepared and knowledgeable on the topics at issue.  However, ALJ Gildea determined that GoerTek must supplement its response to Interrogatory No. 47 because GoerTek never identified the individuals most knowledgeable about the document retention and destruction policies and procedures.  Accordingly, ALJ Gildea granted-in-part Knowles’ Motion to Compel.