• ALJ Rogers Denies Motion To Compel In Certain Light-Emitting Diodes (337-TA-798)
  • December 5, 2011 | Authors: Lisa M. Mandrusiak; Eric W. Schweibenz
  • Law Firm: Oblon, Spivak, McClelland, Maier & Neustadt, L.L.P. - Alexandria Office
  • On November 30, 2011, ALJ Robert K. Rogers, Jr. issued Order No. 17: Denying OSRAM’s Motion To Compel Samsung to Produce Domestic Industry Documents in Certain Light-Emitting Diodes and Products Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-798).

    According to the Order, Respondents OSRAM AG, OSRAM Opto Semiconductors GmbH, OSRAM Opto Semiconductors Inc., and OSRAM Sylvania Inc. (collectively, “OSRAM”) filed a motion to compel Samsung LED Co., Ltd. and Samsung LED America, Inc. (collectively “SLED”) to complete their production of documents and things responsive to OSRAM’s discovery requests relating to domestic industry.  In support of the motion, OSRAM argued that it served discovery requests relating to SLED’s domestic industry on August 18, 2011 and that SLED had not yet substantially completed its domestic industry production, and that information concerning SLED’s alleged domestic industry was necessary to develop its case.  OSRAM also stated that it repeatedly sought confirmation that SLED would substantially complete its document production by November 14, 2011, but SLED refused to do so.  OSRAM determined that there was an impasse on November 7, 2011 and alleged that it was forced to file the instant motion.  SLED opposed the motion, arguing that OSRAM failed to comply with Ground Rules 3.2 and 3.5.  SLED also argued that the parties were engaged in ongoing discussions when OSRAM filed its motion, and that OSRAM agreed to SLED’s proposed deadline to substantially complete its document production by December 12, 2011.

    In the Order, ALJ Rogers determined that OSRAM failed to comply with Ground Rule 3.5 because OSRAM “misrepresented the status of its efforts to resolve this matter” and failed to detail efforts made to resolve the dispute, as required by the rule.  Thus, ALJ Rogers held that “OSRAM has not demonstrated intensive good faith efforts to resolve this dispute in violation of Ground Rule 3.5.”  ALJ Rogers further determined that “OSRAM did not certify that it informed SLED two business days prior to filing of the motion of its intent to file” and did not state SLED’s position on the motion, both failures to comply with Ground Rule 3.2.  Lastly, ALJ Rogers found that OSRAM responded to SLED’s December 12, 2011 proposal, rendering OSRAM’s motion moot.  Accordingly, ALJ Rogers denied OSRAM’s motion to compel.