Home > Legal Library > Article




Join Matindale-Hubbell Connected


ALJ Lord Denies Motion To Compel Deposition In Certain Optical Disc Drives (337-TA-897)




by:
Lisa M. Mandrusiak
Eric W. Schweibenz
Oblon, Spivak, McClelland, Maier & Neustadt, L.L.P. - Alexandria Office

 
April 15, 2014

Previously published on April 10, 2014

On March 25, 2014, ALJ Dee Lord issued Order No. 42 denying Respondents’ motion to compel Complainant’s employee Ryan Fry for an additional day of deposition and to reimburse fees and costs associated therewith in Certain Optical Disc Drives, Components Thereof, and Products Containing the Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-897).

By way of background, the investigation in this case is based on a September 3, 2013 complaint and September 20, 2013 letter supplementing the complaint filed by Optical Devices, LLC (“Optical”) alleging violation of Section 337 in the importation into the U.S. and sale of certain optical disc drives, components thereof, and products containing the same that infringe one or more claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,904,007; 7,196,979; 8,416,651; RE40,927; RE42,913; and RE43,681.

According to the Order, Respondents filed a motion to compel Optical to make its employee Ryan Fry available for an extra day of deposition, to reimburse fees and costs for the same, and to prohibit Optical and its counsel from giving “improper instructions” to Mr. Fry. Specifically, Respondents argued that when Mr. Fry was deposed, he was instructed not to answer questions based on relevance in violation of Commission rules, or was instructed not to answer based on erroneous privilege claims. As such, Respondents sought an extra day of deposition to rectify this issue. Respondents also requested a shortened response time, which Optical opposed.

The parties participated in a teleconference where they “were instructed on the expected conduct and form of depositions” in this Investigation. After the teleconference, Optical filed its opposition to Respondents’ motion, stating that it is willing to produce Mr. Fry for a second day limited to the topics on which he was instructed not to answer, and that the motion is now moot. AJL Lord agreed, and as such, denied the motion, while reminding the parties to be mindful of the instructions provided during the teleconference.



 

The views expressed in this document are solely the views of the author and not Martindale-Hubbell. This document is intended for informational purposes only and is not legal advice or a substitute for consultation with a licensed legal professional in a particular case or circumstance.
 

View More Library Documents By...

 
Author
 
Lisa M. Mandrusiak
Eric W. Schweibenz
 
Oblon, Spivak, McClelland, Maier & Neustadt, L.L.P. Overview