By Eric SchweibenzOn January 2, 2013, ALJ E. James Gildea issued the public versions of Order No. 28 and Order No. 29 (both dated December 20, 2012) denying Complainant Immersion Corporation’s (“Immersion”) motions to compel Respondents HTC Corporation and HTC America, Inc. (collectively, “HTC”) in Certain Mobile Electronic Devices Incorporating Haptics (Inv. No. 337-TA-834).
Order No. 28
According to Order 28, Immersion filed a motion seeking: 1) an order compelling HTC to produce corporate witnesses for depositions on various topics, or, alternatively, 2) an order precluding HTC from offering “evidence, or providing to its experts, any information that HTC’s designated witnesses said they did not know or that HTC said in its objections is not known to HTC.” The order notes that Immersion, in a supplement to its original motion, withdrew its original motion to the extent that it sought the production of witnesses for depositions. In opposition, HTC argued that the lack of knowledge complained of relates to aspects of the accused products that are not in HTC’s possession, custody, or control.
As an initial matter, ALJ Gildea held that HTC is bound by its representations that it lacked knowledge related to certain aspects of the accused products. As to the specific relief request by Immersion, ALJ Gildea held that such relief is unwarranted. Specifically, ALJ Gildea held that HTC prepared its witnesses adequately given the broad scope of the deposition topics. Further, ALJ Gildea held that there was no evidence that the information related to certain aspects of the accused products was actually in HTC possession, custody, or control. Accordingly, ALJ Gildea denied Immersion’s motion.
Order No. 29
According to Order 29, Immersion originally filed a motion seeking an order to compel HTC to provide responses to certain interrogatories and to produce documents in response to certain requests for production. HTC filed an opposition and a supplemental opposition arguing that it: has already produced, has committed to produce, or cannot locate the requested documents. In light of HTC’s responses, Immersion filed a supplement to its original motion, withdrawing its request for responses to interrogatories and production of documents. Immersion’s supplement further requested that “HTC be precluded from offering as evidence, or otherwise relying upon, any information or documents beyond the information and documents that have already been produced in response to the interrogatories and requests for production at issue.”
As an initial matter, ALJ Gildea held that HTC is bound by the representations made in its opposition and supplemental opposition. As to the specific relief request by Immersion, ALJ Gildea held that such relief is premature. Accordingly, ALJ Gildea denied Immersion’s motion.