UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
`
`Washington, D.C.
`
`In the Matter of
`
`CERTAIN NOISE CANCELLING HEADPHONES I
`
`r >
`
`Inv. No. 337-TA-626 ,‘:
`> . -
`ORDER NO. 15: DENYING COMPLAINANT BOSE CORPORATION’S MOTION To
`COMPEL RESPONDENT PHITEK SYSTEMS LIMITED TO PRODUCE A
`KNOWLEDGEABLE CORPORATE WITNESS AND TO ANSWER QUESTIONSJ:
`IMPROPERLY OBJECTED TO BASED ON PRIVILEGE, AND MOTION FOR
`SHORTENED RESPONSE TIME
`
`!
`
`4-
`
`(September 22,2008)
`
`On June 4,2008, Complainant Bose Corporation (“Bose”) filed a motion to compel
`
`Respondent Phitek Systems Ltd.’s (NZ) (“Phitek”) to produce a knowledgeable corporate witness
`
`and to answer questions improperly objected to based on privilege. (Motion Docket No. 626-1 8.)
`
`Bose also moved for a shortened response time, which was not granted. On June 16,2008,
`
`Phitek filed a response to Bose’s motions, and on June 17,2008, Phitek moved for leave, which
`
`is hereby granted, to correct its response because its memorandum was missing the last page.
`
`The Commission Investigative Staff (“Staff”) position is not known. On June 26,2008, Bose
`
`moved for leave to file a reply in support of its motion, which is hereby denied.
`
`In its motion, Bose argued that Phitek’s corporate witness, Mr. Lunt, was unprepared to
`
`testify on Topic Nos. 1-6, 10-30,32-56, and 71-85 and that Mr. Lunt identified several other
`
`Phitek employees better qualified to respond to various topics. Bose also claimed that Phitek
`
`counsel improperly instructed Mr. Lunt not to answer questions relating to any Phitek
`
`compliance tests made after this Investigation was instituted based on the attorney work product
`
`doctrine.
`
`
`
`Washington, D.C.
`
`In the Matter of
`
`CERTAIN NOISE CANCELLING HEADPHONES I
`
`r >
`
`Inv. No. 337-TA-626 ,‘:
`> . -
`ORDER NO. 15: DENYING COMPLAINANT BOSE CORPORATION’S MOTION To
`COMPEL RESPONDENT PHITEK SYSTEMS LIMITED TO PRODUCE A
`KNOWLEDGEABLE CORPORATE WITNESS AND TO ANSWER QUESTIONSJ:
`IMPROPERLY OBJECTED TO BASED ON PRIVILEGE, AND MOTION FOR
`SHORTENED RESPONSE TIME
`
`!
`
`4-
`
`(September 22,2008)
`
`On June 4,2008, Complainant Bose Corporation (“Bose”) filed a motion to compel
`
`Respondent Phitek Systems Ltd.’s (NZ) (“Phitek”) to produce a knowledgeable corporate witness
`
`and to answer questions improperly objected to based on privilege. (Motion Docket No. 626-1 8.)
`
`Bose also moved for a shortened response time, which was not granted. On June 16,2008,
`
`Phitek filed a response to Bose’s motions, and on June 17,2008, Phitek moved for leave, which
`
`is hereby granted, to correct its response because its memorandum was missing the last page.
`
`The Commission Investigative Staff (“Staff”) position is not known. On June 26,2008, Bose
`
`moved for leave to file a reply in support of its motion, which is hereby denied.
`
`In its motion, Bose argued that Phitek’s corporate witness, Mr. Lunt, was unprepared to
`
`testify on Topic Nos. 1-6, 10-30,32-56, and 71-85 and that Mr. Lunt identified several other
`
`Phitek employees better qualified to respond to various topics. Bose also claimed that Phitek
`
`counsel improperly instructed Mr. Lunt not to answer questions relating to any Phitek
`
`compliance tests made after this Investigation was instituted based on the attorney work product
`
`doctrine.
`
`
`
`In its opposition, Phitek argued that it objected to many of the 90 topics in Bose’s
`
`corporate deposition notice as overbroad, seeking legal opinion and expert testimony. Phitek
`
`claimed that Bose failed to describe with reasonable particularity the matters for examination
`
`under Fed.R.Civ.P. 3O(b)(6), making it impossible to universally prepare a corporate witness.
`
`Phitek said that it sought to limit and define these topics three times in its objection notices prior
`
`to Mr. Lunt’s deposition, but that Bose did not provide any specificity until after Mr. Lunt’s
`
`corporate deposition had occurred. Phitek argued that it diligently and reasonably prepared its
`
`witness for the corporate deposition, and that Mr. Lunt properly provided factual information in
`
`response to Bose’s questioning.
`
`The undersigned finds that Bose’s motion is denied.
`
`Based on a review of the deposition transcript, motion papers and responses, the
`
`undersigned finds Phitek’s arguments to be persuasive. The undersigned finds that Phitek
`
`properly lodged an objection to the insufficient particularity of Bose’s corporate deposition
`
`topics, and apprised Bose of its narrowed interpretation of these topics in its second amended
`
`objections to Phitek’s corporate deposition notice.
`
`The undersigned further finds that Bose has not shown that Phitek’s counsel improperly
`
`objected to questions on the basis of privilege.
`
`SO ORDERED.
`
`Administrative Law Judge
`
`-2-
`
`
`
`IN THE MATTER OF CERTAIN NOISE
`CANCELLING HEADPHONES
`
`337-TA-626
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I, Marilyn R. Abbott, hereby certify that the attached ORDER has been served upon,
`Christopher G. Paulraj, Esq., Commission Investigative Attorney, and the following parties
`via first class mail and air mail where necessary on
`,2008..
`September 23
`
`n Abbht, Secretary g N ce
`
`A-
`
`US. International Trade Commission
`500 E Street, S.W., Room 112A
`Washington, DC 20436
`
`FOR COMPLAINANT BOSE CORPORATION:
`
`Andrew R. Kopsidas, Esq.
`FISH & RICHARDSON, P.C.
`1425 K Street, N.W., 1 l* Floor
`Washington, DC 20005
`
`FOR RESPONDENTS PHITEK SYSTEMS LIMITED
`
`Alan Cope Johnson, Esq.
`MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
`2000 Pennsylvania Ave, N. W.
`Washington, DC 20006
`
`William B. Nash, Esq.
`JACKSON WALKER L.L.P.
`112 E. Pecan Street, Suite 2400
`San Antonio, TX 78205
`
`( )Via Hand Delivery
`( )Via Overnight Mail
`W V i a First Class Mail
`( )Other:
`
`( )Via Hand Delivery
`( )Via Overnight Mail
`()OVia First Class Mail
`( )Other:
`
`( )Via Hand Delivery
`( )Via Overnight Mail
`(&Via First Class Mail
`( )Other:
`
`FOR RESPONDENT AUDIO TECHNICA U.S., INC.
`
`Arthur Wineburg, Esq.
`AKIN GUMP STRAWS HAUER & FELD LLP
`1333 New Hampshire Avenue, N.W.
`Washington, DC 20036
`
`( )Via Hand Delivery
`( )Via Overnight Mail
`()QVia First Class Mail
`( )Other:
`
`
`
`IN THE MATTER OF CERTAIN NOISE
`CANCELLING HEADPHONES
`
`337-TA-626
`
`J. Aron Carnanhan, Esq.
`WELSH & KATZ, LTD.
`120 South Riverside Plaza, 22”d Floor
`Chicago, IL 60606
`
`( )Via Hand Delivery
`( )Via Overnight Mail
`(&Via First Class Mail
`( )Other:
`
`FOR RESPONDENT CREATIVE LABS INC.
`
`G. Brian Busey, Esq.
`MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
`2000 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Suite 5500
`Washington, DC 20006
`
`( )Via Hand Delivery
`( )Via Overnight Mail
`(XVia First Class Mail
`( )Other:
`
`FOR RESPONDENT PANASONIC CORPORATION OF NORTH AMERICA
`
`Tom M. Schaumberg, Esq.
`ADDUCI, MASTRIANI & SCHAUMBERG, L.L.P.
`1200 Seventh Street, N.W., Fifth Floor
`Washington, DC 20036
`
`( )Via Hand Delivery
`( )Via Overnight Mail
`()()Via First Class Mail
`( )Other:
`
`Daniel S. Ebenstein, Esq.
`AMSTER ROTHSTEIN & EBENSTEIN, L.L.P.
`90 Park Avenue
`New York, NY 100 16
`
`( )Via Hand Delivery
`( )Via Overnight Mail
`()()Via First Class Mail
`( )Other:
`
`RESPONDENTS:
`
`GN NETCOM, INC.
`77 Northeastern Boulevard
`Nashua, NH 03062
`
`( )Via Hand Delivery
`( )Via Overnight Mail
`( BVia First Class Mail
`( )Other:
`
`
`
`IN THE MATTER OF CERTAIN NOISE
`CANCELLING HEADPHONES
`
`337-TA-626
`
`PUBLIC MAILING LIST
`
`Sherry Robinson
`LEXIS - NEXIS
`8891 Gander Creek Drive
`Miamisburg, OH 45342
`
`Kenneth Clair
`THOMSON WEST
`1100 - 13* Street NW
`Suite 200
`Washington, DC 20005
`
`( )Via Hand Delivery
`( )Via Overnight Mail
`#)Via First Class Mail
`( )Other:
`
`( )Via Hand Delivery
`( )Via Overnight Mail
`( 3 V i a First Class Mail
`( )Other:
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
