throbber
UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
`
`Washington, D.C.
`
`In the Matter of
`
`CERTAIN NOISE CANCELLING HEADPHONES
`
`Inv. No. 337-TA-626
`
`ORDER NO. 22: DENYING PHITEK SYSTEMS LIMITED’S (NZ)’S MOTION TO
`COMPEL ANSWERS AND PRODUCTION TO CERTAIN INTERROGATORIES
`
`(October 22,2008)
`
`~
`
`P I 3
`”Yj
`.. ‘2
`‘ -7
`On June 18,2008, Respondent Phitek Systems Limited’s (NZ) (“Phitek”) moved to-2
`!‘J
`Pw
`compel Complainant Bose Corporation (“Bose”) to provide substantive responses to Phitekls
`- A _-
`Interrogatory Nos. 44,47,48,51 and 52, and to produce documents and things in responseT6
`
`tn 0 ’ -;
`Interrogatory Nos. 51 and 52 pursuant to 19 C.F.R. 210.29(c). (Motion Docket No. 626-23.) On
`
`I - : -
`
`r - 1
`1
`J
`
`the first page of its motion, counsel for Phitek certified that “reasonable and good faith efforts
`
`have been made to resolve this issue with opposing counsel more than two business days prior to
`
`the filing of this motion.” However, in its Ground Rule 3.2 Certification, counsel for Phitek
`
`stated that counsel was unable to raise the issue with counsel for Bose more than two business
`
`days prior to filing because of depositions on June 13.
`
`On June 30,2008, Bose filed an opposition to Phitek’s motion, stating that its objections
`
`to the requests for admission were proper and that it fully answered Phitek Interrogatory Nos. 44,
`
`47,48, 5 1 and 52. In addition, Bose objected to what it characterized as Phitek’s complete
`
`failure to meet and confer prior to filing this motion to compel. According to Bose, Phitek
`
`counsel did not attempt to meet and confer prior to filing, let alone in compliance with Ground
`
`Rule 3.2.
`
`

`
`The undersigned finds Bose’s arguments persuasive. Accordingly, Phitek’s motion to
`
`compel answers and production to certain interrogatories (626-23) is denied.
`
`In addition, the undersigned finds that it is not clear that counsel for Phitek sought to
`
`meet and confer with counsel for Bose prior to filing said motion. As Phitek’s motion was filed
`
`on June 18,2008, the same filing date as the Phitek motion recently addressed in Order No. 19,
`
`the undersigned provides the same warning: the parties should take their meet and confer
`
`obligations with the utmost seriousness, and the undersigned does not want to hear of any more
`
`instances where parties fail to comply in whole or in part with Ground Rule 3.2.
`
`SO ORDERED.
`
`,- -
`Cfharles E. Bullock
`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
`OCT 2 2 2k6. , 2008..
`via first class mail and air mail where necessary on
`
`U.S. Intehational Trade Commisz6n
`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 lth 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
`(!()Via First Class Mail
`( )Other:
`
`( )Via Hand Delivery
`( )Via Overnight Mail
`W V i a First Class Mail
`( )Other:
`
`( )Via Hand Delivery
`( )Via Overnight Mail
`@Via First Class Mail
`( )Other:
`
`FOR RESPONDENT AUDIO TECHNICA U.S., INC.
`
`Amanda R. Johnson, Esq.
`AKIN GUMP STRAUSS HAUER & FELD LLP
`1333 New Hampshire Avenue, N. W.
`Washington, DC 20036
`
`( )Via Hand Delivery
`( )Via Overnight Mail
`O V ' ia First Class Mail
`( )Other:
`
`

`
`IN THE MATTER OF CERTAIN NOISE
`CANCELLING HEADPHONES
`
`337-TA-626
`
`James P. White, 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
`(K)Via 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
`( 8Via First Class Mail
`( )Other:
`
`RESPONDENTS:
`
`GN NETCOM, INC.
`77 Northeastern Boulevard
`Nashua, NH 03062
`
`( )Via Hand Delivery
`( )Via Overnight Mail
`(4)Via 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
`1 100 - 1 3'h Street NW
`Suite 200
`Washington, DC 20005
`
`( )Via Hand Delivery
`( )Via Overnight Mail
`( QVia First Class Mail
`( )Other:
`
`( )Via Hand Delivery
`( )Via Overnight Mail
`(xb)Via First Class Mail
`( )Other:

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket