29
Dec
By Eric Schweibenz
On December 22, 2011, ALJ Robert K. Rogers, Jr. issued the public version of Order No. 13 (dated November 22, 2011) in Certain Integrated Circuits, Chipsets, and Products Containing Same Including Televisions (Inv. No. 337-TA-786) Denying Complainant’s Motion to Compel.

According to the Order, Complainant Freescale Semiconductor, Inc. (“Freescale”) filed a motion to compel Respondent MediaTek, Inc. (“MediaTek”) to provide dates in December 2011 for depositions.  Freescale stated that it requested deposition dates for MediaTeks’s witnesses in Taiwan in December 2011 and MediaTek responded by claiming its witnesses were not available in December, offering dates in January 2012.  According to Freescale’s remarks set forth in the Order, “MediaTek offered no reason regarding why its witnesses could not sit for depositions in December.”  Freescale argued that it wanted to hold the depositions well in advance of the February 10, 2012 deadline for close of discovery “given MediaTek’s past failures in providing prompt responses to discovery.”

MediaTek opposed the motion, stating that it designated three employees to serve as corporate witnesses who all have pre-existing scheduling conflicts “that render them effectively unavailable for deposition in December,” supported by declarations from each of the employees describing their scheduled activities.  MediaTek noted that each employee had reserved time during the first two weeks of January, and Freescale “has offered no sufficient justification regarding why the depositions must occur in December 2011 instead of January 2012.” 

Based on the declarations of the three employees outlining their scheduled activities, ALJ Rogers determined “it is reasonable to hold the depositions in January 2012 instead of December 2011,” noting  that the depositions will be completed with four weeks remaining before the close of fact discovery, giving sufficient time for Freescale to follow-up if necessary.  ALJ Rogers emphasized that “Freescale cites to no evidence demonstrating MediaTek’s “historical failure” to provide prompt discovery responses in this investigation” and that he would “decline to force the MediaTek witnesses to sit for depositions in December based on this unsupported allegation.”
Share



Copyright © 2020 Oblon, McClelland, Maier & Neustadt, L.L.P.