Home > Legal Library > Article




Join Matindale-Hubbell Connected


ALJ Lord Denies Third Party Motion To Quash Or Limit Subpoena In Certain Optical Disc Drives (337-TA-897)




by:
Katherine Cappaert
Eric W. Schweibenz
Oblon, Spivak, McClelland, Maier & Neustadt, L.L.P. - Alexandria Office

 
April 15, 2014

Previously published on April 9, 2014

On March 27, 2014, ALJ Dee Lord issued Order No. 44 denying third party Flashpoint Technologies Inc.’s Motion to Quash or Limit Subpoena in Certain Optical Disc Drives, Components Thereof, and Products Containing the Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-897).

According to the Order, subpoenas duces tecum and ad testificandum were issued and served upon third party Flashpoint Technologies Inc. (“Flashpoint”) by Respondents MediaTek, Inc., MediaTek USA, Inc., Panasonic Corporation, Panasonic Corporation of North America, Nintendo Co., Ltd., Nintendo of America, Inc., Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., LG Electronics, Inc., LG Electronics, U.S.A., Inc., Lenovo Group Ltd., Lenovo (United States) Inc., Toshiba Corporation, and Toshiba America Information Systems Inc. (collectively, the “Respondents”). Flashpoint filed a motion to quash the subpoenas and Respondents filed a response to Flashpoint’s motion to quash.

On March 20, 2014, a telephone conference occurred during which counsel for LG Electronics, Inc. and LG Electronics, U.S.A., Inc. stated that the parties would provide an update regarding the motion via letter after the deposition of Stanley Fry. On March 27, 2014, Respondents submitted a letter stating that they were satisfied with Flashpoint’s responses to the subpoenas and that no further action on the motion to quash was necessary. On the same day, Flashpoint submitted a letter stating that the motion to quash should be granted based on Respondents’ acceptance of Flashpoint’s responses to the subpoenas and also added that it had no objection to the motion to quash being denied as moot.

Based on the Respondents’ representation that they were satisfied with Flashpoint’s response and Flashpoint’s representation that it did not object to the motion to quash being denied, ALJ Lord found that all issues regarding the subpoenas appeared to have been resolved. Accordingly, ALJ Lord denied Flashpoint’s motion to quash as moot.



 

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
 
Katherine Cappaert
Eric W. Schweibenz
 
Oblon, Spivak, McClelland, Maier & Neustadt, L.L.P. Overview