By Eric Schweibenz
On July 22, 2010, ALJ E. James Gildea issued the public version of Order No. 40 (dated July 2, 2010) in Certain Ceramic Capacitors and Products Containing the Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-692).  In the Order, ALJ Gildea granted-in-part 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 individual and corporate witnesses for deposition.

In its motion, Samsung sought to compel Murata to make five individuals available for depositions on the grounds that “they allegedly possess information relevant to a claim or defense in the Investigation.”  ALJ Gildea denied four of Samsung’s requests because either Samsung failed to show that any of the witnesses possessed relevant information on certain issues or Samsung’s rationale for certain depositions was unpersuasive.  As for the one individual witness deposition granted, ALJ Gildea found that it was appropriate because the witness had submitted a declaration in support of Murata’s opposition to one of Samsung’s summary determinations and it would be unfair to “shield that witness from further discovery that may be unfavorable to [Samsung].”

In its motion, Samsung also sought to compel Murata to produce a corporate witness to testify as to topics relating to “Murata’s sales/offers, expectations of confidentiality, license agreements, and other ‘narrow issues.’”  In the Order, ALJ Gildea denied all of Samsung’s requests finding, inter alia, that (i) Murata had or sought to provide Samsung with much of the requested discovery either through prior depositions or in writing; (ii) some of the deposition topics were either irrelevant or duplicative; and (iii) Samsung failed to explain why previous corporate testimony was either deficient or inadequately supplemented.