By Eric Schweibenz
On April 6, 2009, ALJ E. James Gildea issued the public version of Order No. 25 in Certain Laser Imageable Lithographic Printing Plates (337-TA-636).  In the Order, ALJ Gildea denied respondents VIM Technologies, Ltd., Hanita Coatings RCA, Ltd., AteCe Canada, Guaranteed Service & Supplies, Inc., Recognition Systems, Inc., and Spicers Paper, Inc.’s (“Respondents”) motion to preclude complainant Presstek, Inc.’s (“Presstek”) 2009 VIM plate testing conducted by Presstek’s expert and all documents, testimony and arguments relating thereto (“Respondents’ Motion”).

According to the Order, in a previous ruling issued by ALJ Essex, Respondents were permitted to substitute Dr. Yoash Carmi (an employee of Respondent Hanita Coatings RCA, Ltd.) for their previously identified expert (Dr. Richard Goodman), with the understanding that Dr. Carmi’s opinions would be limited to those set forth in Dr. Goodman’s previously submitted expert reports.  The same previous ruling by ALJ Essex permitted Presstek to introduce into evidence Dr. Goodman’s deposition testimony and also permitted Presstek to supplement its expert reports to rebut any new theories advanced by Dr. Carmi.

ALJ Gildea denied Respondents’ motion regarding Presstek’s supplemental expert report as moot since ALJ Essex “already ruled that expert reports will not be admitted into evidence.”  ALJ Gildea further determined that it was unnecessary for Presstek to refute the various new theories advanced by Dr. Carmi at his deposition because Dr. Carmi’s expert opinions were required to be strictly limited to those previously expressed by Dr. Goodman.  According to ALJ Gildea, “[s]uch new opinions, presented for the first time in deposition, will not be admissible.”  Lastly, ALJ Gildea determined that Presstek’s production of the 2009 VIM plate testing conducted by Presstek’s expert and documents relating thereto were responsive to Respondents’ discovery requests and thus were properly disclosed as part of a Presstek supplemental document production.