UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
`Washington, D.C.
`Before the Honorable Charles E. Bullock
`Administrative Law Judge
`
`In the Matter of
`
`CERTAIN NOISE CANCELLING
`HEADPHONES
`
`Inv. No. 337-TA-626
`
`COMMISSION INVESTIGATIVE STAFF’S RESPONSE TO PHITEK SYSTEM
`LIMITED’S (NZ) MOTION TO COMPEL COMPLAINANT BOSE CORPORATION TO
`PRODUCE ITS EXPERT WITNESS’S RESONANCE SHIFT TEST DATA, OR
`ALTERNATIVELY A MOTION FOR NON-MONETARY SANCTIONS
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`On July 2, 2008, Respondent Phitek System Limited (NZ) (“Phitek”) filed a motion to
`
`compel Complainant Bose Corporation (“Bose”) to produce certain testing data generated and
`
`relied on by Bose’s expert witness, Dr. Begault, or alternatively a motion for non-monetary
`
`sanctions. For the reasons set forth below, the Commission Investigative Staff (“Staff”) supports
`
`Phitek’s motion to compel. However, any motion for sanctions under Commission Rule
`
`210.33(b) is premature at this point.
`
`II.
`
`DISCUSSION
`
`Phitek seeks to compel Bose to produce all testing data obtained by Bose’s expert Dr.
`
`Begault while performing certain tests on Respondents’ accused products. Phitek cites to the
`
`deposition of Dr. Begault, where he testified that he conducted certain “in situ” or “resonant
`
`shift” tests, and alleges that Bose has not produced any of the data relating to these tests. Phitek
`
`

`
`2
`
`Mem. at 2-4. Phitek also points out that Dr. Begault testified that he provided a “comment” in
`
`his expert report stating that the resonant shift test “is no longer valid” under certain conditions.
`
`Phitek asserts that Bose has refused to produce any of the data relating to the resonant shift tests
`
`that Dr. Begault contends is not valid.
`
`The Staff agrees with Phitek that Bose should be compelled to produce all data obtained
`
`from tests conducted or considered by Bose’s testifying expert Dr. Begault. Prior Commission
`
`decisions have stated that a party should not be permitted to disclose only favorable test data
`
`while withholding unfavorable data considered by a testifying expert witness. See Certain
`
`High-Brightness Light Emitting Diodes and Products Containing Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-556,
`
`Order No. 25, 2006 ITC LEXIS 423, *2 (July 24,2006) (“If Lumileds or any litigant were
`
`attempting to rely on some tests, but conceal related, unfavorable tests under the work product
`
`doctrine, there is no question that all tests would be discoverable and their production
`
`compelled.”); Certain Phenylene Sufide Polymers and Polymer Compounds and Products
`
`Containing Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-296, Order No. 135, 1989 ITC LEXIS 335, *6 (October 18,
`
`1989) (ordering complainant to produce all tests of the same type done on all samples provided
`
`by respondents). In Certain Sucralose, Sweeteners Containing Sucralose, and Related
`
`Intermediate Compounds Thereof (“Certain Sucralose”), the Judge ruled that:
`
`should Complainants decide once they have received the samples and tested them
`and decide not to use any of the testing data as evidence during the hearing, then
`Complainants should not be compelled to produce any of the testing data to
`Respondents. If Complainants decide, however, to use certain testing data from
`the samples, then all testing data should be produced to Respondents.
`
`Inv. No. 337-TA-604, Order No. 23 at 4(Oct. 1, 2007). The Judge further clarified that “all test
`
`results considered or relied on by [Complainants’] testifying experts, whether they are positive to
`
`

`
`3
`
`Complainants’ contentions or not, and all iterations of these same tests performed on the same
`
`samples” must be produced. Certain Sucralose, Inv. No. 337-TA-604, Order No. 33 at 3 (Nov.
`
`26, 2007). Bose itself has argued that this is the correct standard that should govern whether or
`
`not testing data is subject to discovery. See Bose Corporation’s Opposition to Respondent Phitek
`
`System Limited’s (NZ) First motion to Compel Discovery at 3. Under this standard, there is no
`
`doubt that the data obtained from any resonant shift tests performed by Dr. Begault, a testifying
`
`expert, were considered by him and therefore subject to discovery. 1
`
`Phitek alternatively argues that if Bose is unable to produce the test data it seeks, the
`
`Judge should apply a negative inference that the test data, results and printouts would have
`
`proven that this is the proper test to apply. Phitek Mem. at 9. Commission Rule 210.33(b)
`
`provides for non-monetary sanctions, including negative inferences, if a party fails to comply
`
`with an order compelling discovery. 19 C.F.R. § 210.33(b). At this time, because Bose has not
`
`failed to comply with any order compelling the production of the resonant shift test data, it is
`
`premature to impose sanctions under Commission Rule 210.33(b).
`
`III.
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`For the reasons set forth herein, the Staff supports Phitek’s motion to compel Bose to
`
`produce Dr. Begault’s resonance shift test data.
`
` If it is the case that Respondents’ testifying experts have considered or relied upon test
`1
`data that have not been produced, Respondents are subject to the same standard and should
`produce such data.
`
`

`
`4
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/s/ Christopher G. Paulraj
`Lynn I. Levine, Director
`T. Spence Chubb, Supervisory Attorney
`Christopher G. Paulraj, Investigative Attorney
`OFFICE OF UNFAIR IMPORT INVESTIGATIONS
`U.S. International Trade Commission
`500 E Street, S.W., Suite 401
`Washington, D.C. 20436
`(202) 205-2575
`(202) 205-2158 (Facsimile)
`
`July 14, 2008
`
`

`
`Certain Noise Cancelling Headphones
`
`Investigation No. 337-TA-626
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned certifies that on July 14, 2008, he caused the foregoing COMMISSION INVESTIGATIVE
`STAFF’S RESPONSE TO PHITEK SYSTEM LIMITED’S (NZ) MOTION TO COMPEL COMPLAINANT
`BOSE CORPORATION TO PRODUCE ITS EXPERT WITNESS’S RESONANCE SHIFT TEST DATA, OR
`ALTERNATIVELY A MOTION FOR NON-MONETARY SANCTIONS to be filed with the Secretary,
`served by hand upon Administrative Law Judge Charles E. Bullock (2 copies), and served upon
`the parties (1 copy each) in the manner indicated below:
`
`Counsel for Complainant Bose Corporation
`
`Ruffin B. Cordell
`Andrew R. Kopsidas
`Jeffrey R. Whieldon
`Autumn J. Hwang, Esq.
`FISH & RICHARDSON P.C .
`1425 K Street, N.W., Suite 1100
`Washington, DC 20005
`Telephone: 202-783-5070
`Facsimile: 202-783-2331
`
`Jordan Fowles
`FISH & RICHARDSON P.C .
`717 Main Street, Suite 5000
`Dallas, TX 75201
`Telephone: 214-747-5070
`Facsimile: 202-747-2091
`
`BY EMAIL AND FIRST CLASS MAIL
`
`BY EMAIL AND FIRST CLASS MAIL
`
`Counsel for Respondents Creative Labs, Inc., Phitek
`Systems Limited, GN Netcom, Inc., and Logitech Inc.
`
`BY EMAIL AND FIRST CLASS MAIL
`
`BY EMAIL AND FIRST CLASS MAIL
`
`William B. Nash
`Dan Chapman
`Mark Fassold
`JACKSON WALKER L.L.P.
`112 E. Pecan Street, Suite 2400
`San Antonio, Texas 78205
`Telephone: 210-978-7700
`Facsimile: 210-242-4620
`
`Alan Cope Johnson
`G. Brian Busey
`Cynthia Lopez
`MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
`2000 Pennsylvania Ave, N. W.
`Washington, DC 20006
`Telephone: 202-887-1500
`Facsimile: 202-887-0168
`
`

`
`Counsel for Respondent Audio Technica U.S., Inc.
`
`BY EMAIL AND FIRST CLASS MAIL
`
`Arthur Wineburg
`Daniel E. Yonan
`AKIN GUMP STRAUSS HAUER & FELD LLP
`1333 New Hampshire Avenue, N.W.
`Washington, DC 20036
`Telephone: 202-887-4000
`Facsimile: 202-887-4288
`
`BY EMAIL AND FIRST CLASS MAIL
`
`James P. White
`Gerald T. Shekleton
`J. Aron Carnanhan
`WELSH & KATZ, LTD.
`120 South Riverside Plaza, 22”d Floor
`Chicago, IL 60606
`Telephone: 312-655-1500
`Facsimile: 312-655-1501
`
`Counsel for Respondent Panasonic Corporation of North America
`
`BY EMAIL AND FIRST CLASS MAIL
`
`Tom M. Schaumberg
`Jamie D. Underwood
`ADDUCI, MASTRIANI & SCHAUMBERG, LLP
`1200 Seventeenth Street, N.W., Fifth Floor
`Washington, DC 20036
`Telephone: 202-467-6300
`Facsimile: 202-466-2006
`
`BY EMAIL AND FIRST CLASS MAIL
`
`Daniel S. Ebenstein
`Abraham Kasdan
`Joseph M. Casino
`David A. Boag
`AMSTER, ROTHSTEIN & EBENSTEIN LLP
`90 Park Avenue
`New York, NY 10016
`Telephone: 212-336-8000
`Facsimile: 212-336-8001
`
` /s/ Christopher G. Paulraj
`Christopher G. Paulraj
`Investigative Attorney
`
`OFFICE OF UNFAIR IMPORT INVESTIGATIONS
`U.S. International Trade Commission
`500 E Street, S.W., Suite 401
`Washington, D.C. 20436
`(202) 205-2575
`(202) 205-2158 (fax)
`
`-ii-
`
`

`
`-iii-
`-111-