By Eric Schweibenz
On April 27, 2011, ALJ Charles E. Bullock issued Order No. 11 in Certain Automated Media Library Devices (Inv. No. 337-TA-746).  The Order denied a motion filed by Respondents BDT AG; BDT-Solutions GmbH & Co. KG; BDT Automation Technology (Zhuhai FTZ) Co., Ltd.; BDT de México, S. de R.L. de C.V. (collectively, “BDT”).

According to the Order, BDT’s motion requested that the ALJ compel Complainant Overland Storage, Inc. (“Overland”) to designate corporate witnesses and make them available for deposition.  In the motion, BDT asserted that, pursuant to Ground Rule 3.2, it “made reasonable, good faith efforts to resolve [the] matters with Overland,” that the parties were at an impasse, and that it notified Overland of its intent to file the motion.

Overland, however, opposed the motion, arguing that BDT did not in fact comply with Ground Rule 3.2.  Overland asserted that BDT filed the motion abruptly while the parties were still in the meet-and-confer process on at least two of the deposition topics and that BDT never sought Overland’s position on the motion before filing.

In the Order, ALJ Bullock determined that BDT did not comply with the ground rule.  Specifically, the ALJ found that BDT failed to notify Overland of its intention to file the motion with respect to the two deposition topics as to which the parties were still discussing.  According to the Order, the letter, which BDT claimed gave Overland notice did not address the two deposition topics.  ALJ Bullock thus denied BDT’s motion without prejudice, allowing BDT to re-file after complying with Ground Rule 3.2.