By Eric Schweibenz
On July 6, 2010, ALJ E. James Gildea issued the public version of Order No. 33 (dated June 11, 2010) in Certain Ceramic Capacitors and Products Containing the Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-692).

In the Order, ALJ Gildea denied Respondents’ Samsung Electro-Mechanics Co. Ltd. and Samsung Electro-Mechanics America, Inc.’s (collectively “Samsung”) motion to compel Complainants Murata Manufacturing Co., Ltd and Murata Electronics North America, Inc. (collectively “Murata”) to produce documents.

According to the Order, Samsung sought an order compelling Murata to produce (1) documents from their “witness log,” and (2) privileged documents responsive to Samsung’s requests for production.  Samsung argued that if Murata’s motion to compel Respondents’ privileged documents was granted, then Samsung was “entitled to ‘identical relief’ with respect to Complainants’ privileged documents.”  Samsung further argued that Murata’s privilege log was untimely filed.  In their opposition, Murata argued that Samsung’s motion had no basis in fact or law and was not comparable to Murata’s motion to compel.

ALJ Gildea denied Samsung’s motion noting both the six month delay between the submission of Murata’s privilege log and the filing of Samsung’s motion and Samsung’s admission of the “merely…reciprocal” nature of their motion.