By Eric Schweibenz
On March 14, 2013, ALJ David P. Shaw issued Order No. 68 denying Respondents Funai Electric Co., Ltd., Funai Corporation, Inc., P&F USA, Inc., and Funai Service Corporation’s (collectively, “Funai”) motion to preclude Complainants LSI Corporation and Agere Systems LLC (collectively, “Complainants”) from relying on certain documents in Certain Audiovisual Components and Products Containing the Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-837).

According to the Order, Funai argued that Complainants should be precluded from relying on certain documents relating to their domestic industry arguments because such documents were produced by Complainants after the close of fact discovery.  Additionally, Funai asserted that the documents at issue did not relate to the extended discovery set by Order Nos. 37 and 48.

In opposition, Complainants argued that the documents at issue were produced prior to the close of fact discovery.  Further, Complainants asserted that a blanket order directed to the documents at issue should not be issued because the Complainants’ reasons for the late production of each document varied.

ALJ Shaw determined that a blanket preclusion of the documents at issue is inappropriate at this time in the investigation because it is unclear which of the documents Complainants will rely on at the evidentiary hearing.  ALJ Shaw held that the documents would be addressed on a document-by-document basis.  Accordingly, ALJ Shaw denied Funai’s motion.