By Eric Schweibenz
On October 5, 2012, ALJ David P. Shaw issued the public version of Order No. 34 (dated September 19, 2012) denying Complainants LSI Corporation and Agere Systems Inc.’s (collectively, “LSI”) motion to compel Respondent Funai Electric Company Ltd. (“Funai”) to produce corporate witnesses outside of Japan in Certain Audiovisual Components and Products Containing the Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-837).

According to the Order, LSI argued that they suffered a hardship or other unusual circumstance justifying their request in light of the difficulties they have encountered and the impending discovery deadline.  More particularly, LSI asserted that they had been diligent in their efforts to take Funai’s depositions in Japan since June 2012, but were unsuccessful due to Funai’s “dilatory tactics.”  Funai opposed LSI’s motion and argued that “LSI’s discovery problems are solely the result of its noncompliance (or persistently late compliance) with the applicable rules – rules that Funai explained to it multiple times – and LSI’s own changing position regarding the information sought by its own Amended Notce.”

In the Order, ALJ Shaw noted that the “generally accepted practice in Section 337 investigations is to have depositions taken at a location that is convenient for the witness unless there is a showing of hardship or unusual circumstances.”  ALJ Shaw denied the motion here and concluded that LSI did not demonstrate the required showing to justify an order compelling a deposition of Funai outside of Japan.