By Eric Schweibenz
On November 4, 2011, ALJ Thomas B. Pender issued Order No. 15:  Granting Samsung LED Co., Ltd.’s Motion To Compel Domestic Industry From Complainant OSRAM in Certain Light-Emitting Diodes and Products Containing the Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-785).

According to the Order, Respondent Samsung LED Co., Ltd. (“SLED”) filed a motion to compel Complainant OSRAM AG ( “OSRAM”) to produce complete responses to SLED’s discovery requests regarding domestic industry.  In support of the motion, SLED argued that OSRAM should have had this information before it filed its complaint, and noted that OSRAM was obligated to respond within ten days after service of the requests pursuant to Commission Rule 210.30 and Ground Rule 4.4.3.  SLED also argued that it has been prejudiced by the delay because of the reduction in available time for third party discovery.  OSRAM opposed the motion, stating that it agreed to produce non-privileged documents relating to domestic industry and will substantially complete the production by November 15, 2011.  OSRAM also asserted that its complaint already provided significant domestic industry information, and, in light of these facts, argued that SLED’s motion to compel is moot.

In the Order, ALJ Pender confirmed that OSRAM’s responses were in fact due by July 22, 2011, ten days after SLED’s document requests.  ALJ Pender noted that OSRAM did not initially respond to these requests until August 11, 2011 and failed to provide any response to those requests that were related to domestic industry, merely stating “it will produce responsive non-privileged documents relevant to the claims and defenses in this Investigation.”  ALJ Pender also noted that OSRAM only began to provide substantive responses to the disputed document requests after SLED filed the motion to compel. 

In granting SLED’s motion, ALJ Pender noted that OSRAM provided “no valid justification in its opposition for its delay in responding to [SLED]’s requests, and frankly, I am puzzled by the delay given that the majority, if not the entirety, of information related to domestic industry ought to be in OSRAM’s custody or control.”  Accordingly, ALJ Pender granted SLED’s motion to compel and ordered OSRAM to completely respond to SLED’s requests no later than November 10, 2011.