By Eric Schweibenz
On July 6, 2010, Chief ALJ Paul J. Luckern issued the public version of Order No. 22 (dated May 12, 2010) in Certain DC-DC Controllers and Products Containing the Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-698).

In the Order, ALJ Luckern granted Complainants Richtek Technology Corp. and Richtek USA, Inc.’s (“Richtek”) motion to compel.  In its motion, Richtek sought an order compelling Respondent uPI Semiconductor Corporation (“uPI”) to (i) provide responses to Richtek’s financial interrogatories, (ii) identify by production number the specific reference documents providing the financial support necessary to answer Richtek’s financial questions, (iii) supplement the report of its expert concerning uPI’s DC/DC controller business, and (iv) schedule the continued deposition of uPI’s CFO and corporate representative regarding uPI’s DC/DC controller business.  In support of the motion, Richtek argued that for more than two months uPI failed to provide meaningful responses to Richtek’s interrogatories requesting fundamental financial information about uPI’s DC-DC controller business, including information regarding the accused products’ price, volume, revenue, cost and profit.  Richtek further argued that uPI dismissed the interrogatories with blanket citations to Commission Rule 210.29(c) as its response without identifying appropriately responsive documentation by production number.  In opposition, uPI argued that (i) Richtek already had the subject uPI financial information (ii) Richtek used the requested information both in depositions and in an expert report, (iii) Richtek had manufactured a discovery dispute where none existed, and (iv) Richtek’s motion sought an impermissible second bite at certain depositions.

According to the Order, ALJ Luckern determined that when “new information comes to light in the late stages of discovery, a second deposition is favored.”  ALJ Luckern further determined that certain of uPI’s interrogatory responses included reference to production numbers and that others did not.  Therefore, ALJ Luckern ordered uPI to “further supplement all responses to said interrogatories directed to financial matters no later than May 17, 2010 to include [production] numbers of all relevant documents and at least a brief explanation as to what each referenced document contains.” (Emphasis in original).  ALJ Luckern further ordered that after uPI supplemented its responses, uPI was to allow Richtek a further deposition with respect to all of the interrogatory responses that were supplemented.