• ALJ Charneski Rules on Motion to Compel in Certain Electronic Devices Having Image Capture or Display Functionality (337-TA-672)
  • July 23, 2010 | Author: Eric W. Schweibenz
  • Law Firm: Oblon, Spivak, McClelland, Maier & Neustadt, L.L.P. - Alexandria Office
  • On July 2, 2010, ALJ Carl C. Charneski issued the public version of Order No. 14 (dated October 27, 2009) in Certain Electronic Devices Having Image Capture or Display Functionality and Components Thereof (337-TA-672).  In the Order, ALJ Charneski denied Complainant LG Electronics, Inc.’s (“LGE”) motion to compel certain discovery from Respondent Eastman Kodak Company (“Kodak”).

    LGE’s motion sought an order compelling Kodak to produce (i) technical information “relating to face detection, auto-focusing, and the system architecture of the processors of Kodak’s accused products,” and (ii) a corporate representative to testify regarding certain deposition topics.  In opposition, Kodak argued that it properly complied with LGE’s discovery requests, including “producing more than 1.8 million pages of documents” and “tens of thousands” of pages of responsive third-party documents.  Kodak also argued that the documents sought by LGE were either already produced, or were not the subject of a previous meet and confer.

    According to the Order, ALJ Charneski determined that “LGE is not entitled to an order compelling Kodak to produce the requested information” in view of (i) Kodak’s representation as to the documents already provided in discovery, (ii) the overall lack of clarity in LGE’s motion to compel, and (iii) the fact that LGE had subpoened third-party supplier documents.  ALJ Charneski nonetheless ordered the parties to meet and confer in an effort to resolve the disputed discovery issues and report to the ALJ as to the results achieved through the parties’ discussions.