28
Jun
By Eric Schweibenz
On June 24, 2011, ALJ Charles E. Bullock issued Order No. 14 denying Complainant Overland Storage, Inc.’s (“Overland”) motion to compel discovery from third-party Spectra Logic Corporation (“Spectra Logic”) in Certain Automated Media Library Devices (Inv. No. 337-TA-746).

In support of its motion, Overland argued that Spectra Logic, an OEM customer of certain respondents, “possesses evidence that is highly relevant to Overland’s claims of indirect infringement against Respondents, and Overland’s claim that [certain respondents’] customers directly infringe the asserted patents.”  Spectra Logic opposed the motion and argued that Overland’s motion was “procedurally defective” since it was brought before the wrong authority and “substantively improper because it exceeds the bounds of discovery established under Rule 26 … as that Rule applies to non-parties.”

ALJ Bullock denied Overland’s motion and determined that while Overland’s motion is styled as a motion to compel, “[a]n administrative law judge [ ] cannot compel a non-party to provide documents and/or testimony in response to a subpoena.”  ALJ Bullock further determined that “[w]here a party seeks discovery from a third party that is responsive to a subpoena, such discovery must be sought through Commission Rule 210.32(g), which governs judicial enforcement of subpoenas.”  ALJ Bullock also determined that Overland’s motion did not include a request for judicial enforcement of the subpoena and was thus procedurally defective.  Lastly, ALJ Bullock noted that he would not initiate subpoena enforcement proceedings sua sponte.