ALJ Gildea Grants Motion To Quash Subpoena In Certain Dynamic Random Access Memory and NAND Flash Memory Devices (337-TA-803)
On February 13, 2012, ALJ E. James Gildea issued Order No. 23 in Certain Dynamic Random Access Memory and NAND Flash Memory Devices and Products Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-803).
In the Order, ALJ Gildea granted-in-part nonparty Round Rock Research, LLC’s (“RRR”) motion to quash or limit a subpoena served on it by Respondents Hynix Semiconductor America, Inc., Hynix Semiconductor Inc., Elpida Memory, Inc., and Elpida Memory (USA) Inc. (collectively, “Respondents”).
In support of its motion, RRR argued that the discovery sought by Respondents’ subpoena neither existed nor was relevant to the issues in the investigation. More particularly, RRR included with their motion an unsworn declaration of its President, John Desmarais, stating that RRR “has no relationship or familiarity” with the asserted patents; Complainants did not have a role in RRR’s acquisition of patents from Micron; and RRR has not conducted business with Complainants with respect to the asserted patents or the licenses asserted to support Complainants’ domestic industry allegations in this Investigation.
Respondents opposed the motion and argued that the information sought was “plainly relevant” to the Complainants’ domestic industry allegations. Specifically, Respondents argued that there were “connections” that they must explore between RRR, the licensee that Complainants assert will support their domestic industry allegations, and Complainants.
According to the Order, ALJ Gildea first noted that although RRR had to overcome a “particularly heavy burden to show that a subpoena is unreasonable and oppressive,” it “does not mean that a party may take unlimited discovery from a nonparty.” In this regard, ALJ Gildea further noted that Commission Rule 210.27(b) governs the scope of discovery in this context and requires that the non-privileged information sought be relevant to any claim or defense and thus must at least be reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. ALJ Gildea determined that Respondents did not articulate sufficient grounds for how their requested discovery from RRR is relevant or calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence in this Investigation, particularly since “Respondents do not appear to allege that the Micron license is in some manner invalid.”
Accordingly, ALJ Gildea granted RRR’s motion in part. As noted above, because Mr. Desmarais’s declaration was unsworn, ALJ Gildea provided RRR until February 23, 2012 to provide a sworn declaration containing the same statements made in his unsworn declaration attached to RRR’s motion.
