UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
`WASHINGTON, D.C.
`
`Before the Honorable Charles E. Bullock
`Administrative Law Judge
`
`Investigation No. 337-TA-626
`
`
`
`In the Matter of
`
`CERTAIN NOISE CANCELLING
`HEADPHONES
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`JOINT PROPOSAL FOR AMENDED PROCEDURAL SCHEDULE
`
`Pursuant to Order No. 11, Initial Determination Extending the Target Date to Nineteen
`
`Months, or August 6, 2009, counsel for Complainant Bose Corporation (“Bose”), counsel for
`
`Respondents Phitek Systems Limited (New Zealand), Audio Technica U.S., Inc., Creative Labs,
`
`Inc., and Panasonic Corporation of North America (collectively, “Respondents”),1 and the OUII
`
`Staff have met and conferred upon an amended procedural schedule that includes dates for each
`
`of the remaining events set forth in Ground Rule 2, taking into consideration the amended
`
`anticipated hearing date, December 4, 2008, and the amended target date, August 6, 2009, for
`
`this investigation. All of the above represented parties have agreed to the following proposed
`
`amended procedural schedule.
`
`Event
`Submission of third settlement conference joint report
`File pre-trial statements and briefs – Complainant and
`Respondents
`File requests for receipt of evidence without a witness
`
`Proposed Date
`By 7/18/2008
`9/18/2008
`
`9/25/2008
`
`
`1
`Respondent Phitek Systems Limited (U.S.), named in Bose’s complaint, has not appeared
`in this investigation. The Investigation was terminated as to Respondent Logitech, Inc. on May
`28, 2008 based upon a settlement agreement. On June 1, 2008, Bose and Respondent GN US,
`Inc. (“GN”) filed a joint motion seeking termination of this Investigation as to GN on the basis of
`a Consent Order Stipulation.
`
`

`
`Event
`File objections to direct exhibits (including witness
`statements)
`Submit and serve rebuttal exhibits (including witness
`statements), with rebuttal physical and demonstrative
`exhibits available – all parties
`File pre-trial statement and brief – Staff
`Deadline for motions in limine
`File responses to objections to direct exhibits (including
`witness statements)
`File objections to rebuttal exhibits (including witness
`statements)
`File high priority objections statement
`File responses to objections to rebuttal exhibits (including
`witness statements)
`File responses to motions in limine
`Exchange Demonstrative Exhibits
`File responses to high priority objections statement
`Tutorial on technology (if necessary)
`Pre-trial conference
`Trial
`File initial post-trial briefs, proposed findings of fact and
`conclusions of law, and final exhibit list
`File reply post-trial briefs, objections and rebuttals to
`proposed findings of fact
`Initial Determination due
`Target date for completion of investigation
`
`Proposed Date
`9/30/2008
`
`10/2/2008
`
`10/2/2008
`10/17/2008
`10/22/2008
`
`10/29/2008
`
`11/3/2008
`11/10/2008
`
`11/10/2008
`11/13/2008
`11/19/2008
`12/3/2008*
`12/3/2008*
`12/4 – 12/12/2008*
`1/16/2009
`
`2/6/2009
`
`4/6/2009*
`8/6/2009*
`
` denotes dates set by the Court in Order No. 11.
`
` *
`
`
`
`JOINT PROPOSAL FOR AMENDED PROCEDURAL SCHEDULE
`
`Page 2
`
`

`
`Respondents’ Position
`
`In addition to the above dates, Respondents propose that the schedule include the date of
`
`August 29, 2008 for the filing of revised witness statements (three weeks before the pre-hearing
`
`statements of the private parties are to be filed). All parties initially served Witness Statements
`
`on July 7, 2008, the same day the Court issued Order No. 11 that continued the hearing date in
`
`this case by four months. In Respondents’ view, the additional four months provides all parties
`
`an opportunity to review and further refine their presentation of evidence, which will streamline
`
`the trial process.2 Use of this additional time to more clearly focus the issues for trial serves the
`
`administration of justice. However, the parties cannot efficiently refine their presentations of
`
`evidence unless they are allowed to supplement their Witness Statements. In this regard,
`
`Respondents note that Witness Statements are not normally submitted until approximately month
`
`before the ITC Hearing (and two weeks before the pre-hearing statements are submitted). The
`
`benefit of additional time for analysis and consideration afforded by Order No. 11, as well as its
`
`concomitant effect of focusing issues for trial, is substantially reduced if the parties’ Witness
`
`Statements are fixed some five months before trial, as is the case urged by Bose here.
`
`Bose’s and OUII Staff’s Positions
`
`Bose opposes the inclusion on the schedule of August 29, 2008 for the filing of revised
`
`witness statements and proposes that any supplementation or revision of witness statements be
`
`considered on a case-by-case basis for good cause shown. It is Bose’s position that Order No. 11
`
`was issued to accommodate the Court’s schedule and not for the parties to re-do what has already
`
`
`2 Courts routinely acknowledge that even when discovery is closed, the parties are free to
`continue their analysis and investigation of issues in the case. Charles v. Cotter, 867 F. Supp.
`648, 654 (N.D.Ill. 1994)(Castillo, J.)(“[I]t does not follow from the fact that the court has set a
`date for the close of discovery, that all investigation into a party's claims or defenses must come
`to a halt on that date.”)
`
`JOINT PROPOSAL FOR AMENDED PROCEDURAL SCHEDULE
`
`Page 3
`
`

`
`been done. The OUII Staff also does not support the inclusion of a date in the procedural
`
`schedule for revised witness statements.
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` /s/ Andrew R. Kopsidas
` /s/ Autumn J. Hwang
`Ruffin B. Cordell
`Andrew R. Kopsidas
`Jeffrey R. Whieldon
`Autumn J. Hwang
`FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
`1425 K Street, N.W., 11th Floor
`Washington, D.C. 20005
`Telephone: (202) 783-5070
`Facsimile: (202) 783-2331
`
`Attorneys for Complainant
`Bose Corporation
`
`Dated: July 18, 2008
`
`
`Dated: July 18, 2008
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` /s/ William B. Nash
`William B. Nash
`Daniel D. Chapman
`Mark Fassold
`JACKSON WALKER L.L.P.
`112 E. Pecan Street., Suite 2400
`San Antonio, TX 78209
`
`Counsel for Respondents Phitek Systems
`Limited and Creative Labs, Inc.
`
`
`
`JOINT PROPOSAL FOR AMENDED PROCEDURAL SCHEDULE
`
`Page 4
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
` /s/ James P. White
`James P. White
`J. Aron Carnahan
`WELSH & KATZ, LTD.
`120 South Riverside Plaza, 22nd Fl.
`Chicago, IL. 60606
`
`Counsel for Respondent Audio-Technica
`U.S., Inc.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` /s/ Daniel Ebenstein
`Daniel Ebenstein
`Abraham Kasdan
`Joseph Casino
`AMSTER, ROTHSTEIN & EBENSTEIN
`LLP
`90 Park Avenue
`New York, NY 10016
`
`Counsel for Respondent Panasonic
`Corporation of North America
`
`
`
`
`Dated: July 18, 2008
`
`Dated: July 18, 2008
`
`
`
`Dated: July 18, 2008
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` /s/ Christopher G. Paulraj
`Christopher G. Paulraj
`T. Spence Chubb
`Office of Unfair Import Investigations
`U.S. International Trade Commission
`500 E Street SW, Room 401-R
`Washington, DC 20463
`
`
`JOINT PROPOSAL FOR AMENDED PROCEDURAL SCHEDULE
`
`Page 5
`
`

`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that on July 18, 2008, a copy of
`
`JOINT PROPOSAL FOR AMENDED PROCEDURAL SCHEDULE
`__________________________________
`was served on the following as indicated:
`
`
`
`Marilyn R. Abbott
`Secretary
`U.S. International Trade Commission
`500 E. Street, S.W., Room 112-F
`Washington, DC 20436
`
`
`
` Via Hand Delivery
` Via U.S. Mail
` Via Overnight Delivery
` Via Electronic Mail
` Via Facsimile
` Via Electronic Docket Filing
` Not Served
`
` Via Hand Delivery
` Via U.S. Mail
` Via Overnight Delivery
` Via Electronic Mail
` Via Facsimile
` Via Electronic Docket Filing
` Not Served
`
` Via Hand Delivery
` Via U.S. Mail
` Via Overnight Delivery
` Via Electronic Mail
` Via Facsimile
` Via Electronic Docket Filing
` Not Served
`
` Via Hand Delivery
` Via U.S. Mail
` Via Overnight Delivery
` Via Electronic Mail
` Via Facsimile
` Via Electronic Docket Filing
` Not Served
`
`
`The Honorable Charles E. Bullock
`Administrative Law Judge
`U.S. International Trade Commission
`500 E Street, S.W., Room 317-I
`Washington, DC 20436
`
`
`
`T. Spence Chubb, Esq.
`Christopher G. Paulraj, Esq.
`Office of Unfair Import Investigations
`U.S. International Trade Commission
`500 E Street, S.W., Room 404-I
`Washington, DC 20436
`
`
`
`William B. Nash, Esq.
`Daniel D. Chapman, Esq.
`Mark Fassold, Esq.
`Jackson Walker L.L.P.
`112 E. Pecan Street., Suite 2400
`San Antonio, TX 78209
`
`Counsel for Respondents Phitek Systems
`Limited, GN Netcom, Inc., Creative Labs, Inc.,
`and Logitech Inc.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`
`Alan Cope Johnston, Esq.
`G. Brian Busey, Esq.
`Cynthia Lopez Beverage, Esq.
`Morrison & Foerster LLP
`2000 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W., Suite 5500
`Washington, DC 20006-1888
`
`Counsel for Respondents Phitek Systems
`Limited, GN Netcom, Inc., Creative Labs, Inc.,
`and Logitech Inc.
`
`
`James P. White, Esq.
`J. Aron Carnahan, Esq.
`Welsh & Katz, Ltd.
`120 South Riverside Plaza, 22nd Floor
`Chicago, IL. 60606
`
`Counsel for Respondent Audio Technica U.S.,
`Inc.
`
`
`Arthur Wineburg, Esq.
`Daniel E. Yonan, Esq.
`Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP
`1333 New Hampshire Ave., N.W.
`Washington, DC 20036
`
`Counsel for Respondent Audio-Technica U.S.,
`Inc.
`
`
`Daniel Ebenstein, Esq.
`Abraham Kasdan, Esq.
`Joseph Casino, Esq.
`David A. Boag, Esq.
`Amster, Rothstein & Ebenstein LLP
`90 Park Avenue
`New York, NY 10016
`
`Counsel for Respondent Panasonic
`Corporation of North America
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Via Hand Delivery
` Via U.S. Mail
` Via Overnight Delivery
` Via Electronic Mail
` Via Facsimile
` Via Electronic Docket Filing
` Not Served
`
` Via Hand Delivery
` Via U.S. Mail
` Via Overnight Delivery
` Via Electronic Mail
` Via Facsimile
` Via Electronic Docket Filing
` Not Served
`
` Via Hand Delivery
` Via U.S. Mail
` Via Overnight Delivery
` Via Electronic Mail
` Via Facsimile
` Via Electronic Docket Filing
` Not Served
`
` Via Hand Delivery
` Via U.S. Mail
` Via Overnight Delivery
` Via Electronic Mail
` Via Facsimile
` Via Electronic Docket Filing
` Not Served
`
`

`
` Via Hand Delivery
` Via U.S. Mail
` Via Overnight Delivery
` Via Electronic Mail
` Via Facsimile
` Via Electronic Docket Filing
` Not Served
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Patrick E. Edelin, Jr.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Tom M. Schaumberg, Esq.
`Jamie D. Underwood, Esq.
`Adduci, Mastriani & Schaumberg, LLP
`1200 Seventh Street, N.W., Fifth Floor
`Washington, DC 20036
`
`Counsel for Respondent Panasonic
`Corporation of North America