By Alex Gasser
On January 10, 2011, ALJ Charles E. Bullock issued Order No. 28: Denying StarView Solutions’ Application for Costs in Response to Complying with Subpoena Duces Tecum and Subpoena Ad Testificandum in Certain Portable Electronic Devices and Related Software (Inv. No. 337-TA-721).

According to the Order, third-party StarView Solutions (“StarView”) filed an application requesting $21,650.00 as reimbursement for costs and expenses incurred in responding to subpoenas served by Complainants HTC Corporation (“HTC”) requesting documents and witness testimony.  StarView requested these costs to be borne by HTC and Respondent Apple, Inc. (“Apple”).   HTC responded that it would provide any witness fees associated with its subpoena requesting testimony, and reimburse StarView for copying costs associated with its subpoena requesting documents, but that HTC was not required to reimburse routine legal expenses associated with duly issued subpoenas.  Apple responded that it should incur no liability for the subpoena expenses, given that Apple played no role in requesting or administering the subpoenas.

ALJ Bullock denied StarView’s application on the grounds that StarView identified no relevant authority for its proposed cost-shifting, nor was ALJ Bullock aware of any Commission rule requiring HTC or Apple to reimburse a third-party for routine legal expenses.