By Eric Schweibenz
On June 28, 2013, ALJ Thomas B. Pender issued Order No. 12 in Certain Cases for Portable Electronic Devices (Inv. No. 337-TA-861/867).  In the Order, ALJ Pender denied Respondent Fellowes, Inc.’s (“Fellowes”) motion to quash Complainant Speculative Product Design, LLC’s (“Speck”) subpoenas to certain non-parties.

According to the Order, ALJ Pender found that Fellowes’s motion failed to comply with the ALJ’s Ground Rules for the investigation.  In particular, the motion violated Ground Rule 5.1.1 (requiring a separate memorandum and appendix for motions longer than 5 pages), Ground Rule 5.1.2 (requiring a certification that the moving party informed the other parties of its intent to file the motion and made good faith efforts to contact the other parties and resolve the matter at least 2 business days prior to filing the motion), Ground Rule 5.4.1 (requiring an intensive good faith effort to resolve the discovery dispute without intervention by the ALJ), and Ground Rule 5.4.2 (requiring that the moving party contact the ALJ’s attorney-advisor to schedule a teleconference with the ALJ in an attempt to resolve the discovery dispute).  Accordingly, ALJ Pender found that “[a]s a party to this Investigation, there is no excuse for Fellows’ failure to comply with my Ground Rules,” and denied Fellowes’s motion on that basis.

In addition to Fellowes’s failure to comply with the Ground Rules, ALJ Pender also found that Fellowes had not demonstrated that it had standing to move to quash the subpoenas to the non-parties.  In particular, Fellowes had not identified any personal right or privilege with respect to the requested documents or testimony and therefore could not demonstrate that it had standing to move to quash the subpoenas to the non-parties.  Thus, ALJ Pender denied Fellowes’s motion on that basis as well.