UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
WASHINGTON, D.C.
Before The Honorable David P. Shaw
Administrative Law Judge
In the Matter of
CERTAIN WIRELESS DEVICES WITH
3G CAPABILITIES AND COMPONENTS
THEREOF
Investigation No. 337-TA-800
LG RESPONDENTS' MOTION
(1) FOR A ONE-WEEK EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO INTERDIGITAL'S
MOTION TO COMPEL PERSONAL DEPOSITIONS OR FOR PRECLUSIVE
SANCTIONS AGAINST LG [MTN NO. 800-102];
(2) FOR A SHORTENED RESPONSE TIME AND EXPEDITED CONSIDERATION OF
THE PRESENT MOTION
Pursuant to Commission Rule 201.15 and 210.32, Respondents LG Electronics, Inc., LG
Electronics USA, Inc., and LG Electronics Mobilecomm USA, Inc. (collectively, "LG") move
(1) for a one-week extension of time to file a response to InterDigital's Motion to Compel
Personal Depositions of LG Party Witnesses or, in the Alternative, for Preclusive Sanctions
Against LG ("Motion to Compel") [Motion No. 800-102]; and (2) for a shortened response time
and expedited consideration of this motion.
The Staff supports LG's motion for an extension of time and does not oppose LG’s
motion for a shortened response time and for expedited consideration. InterDigital opposes.
Respondents ZTE, Nokia, and Huawei do not oppose LG's motion.
2
I. BACKGROUND
On June 4, 2012, the ALJ issued Order No. 30 as an initial determination granting LG's
motion to terminate the investigation as to LG based on an arbitration agreement. [Jun. 4, 2012
Order No. 30.] On June 11, 2012, complainant InterDigital filed a petition for review of Order
No. 30 based on alleged legal and factual errors implicating Commission policy. LG and the
Staff filed their respective oppositions to InterDigital's petition on June 18, 2012, and urged the
Commission to deny the petition for review. Pursuant to Commission Rules, Order No. 30 will
become the final determination of the Commission on July 5, 2012, unless the Commission
orders review of the initial determination. See 19 C.F.R. §§ 210.42(h)(3) & 210.43(d)(1).
Over two weeks after the issuance of Order No. 30 and despite the pending petition for
Commission review, InterDigital filed its Motion to Compel against LG on June 20, 2012, which
LG opposes. [See Motion No. 800-102.] Under Commission Rules, LG's opposition, as well
any response from the Staff and other parties, is due on July 2, 2012—just three calendar days
before the July 5, 2012 date by which the Commission will issue its decision on the petition for
review.
After receiving InterDigital's Motion to Compel, LG met and conferred with InterDigital
to request an extension of time until Monday July 9, 2012, i.e., after the July 5
th
decision from
the Commission on the petition to review, to respond to the Motion to Compel. [Ex. 1 (June 20,
2012 E-mail fr. Sterba to Kang).] InterDigital rejected LG's request for a short extension: "[W]e
cannot agree to the requested extension, as it would substantially prejudice our ability to timely
complete LG's 30(b)(1) depositions should the Commission grant InterDigital's pending
Petition." [Ex. 2 (June 20, 2012 E-mail fr. Kang to Sterba).]
Given InterDigital's unreasonable refusal, LG is forced to file this present motion for an
extension of time. Because the response to this motion for extension is due after the date by
3
which LG must file its opposition to InterDigital's Motion to Compel, LG respectfully requests a
shortened response time of 24 hours and expedited consideration of this motion.
II. ARGUMENT
There is good cause to grant LG's present motion. Under Commission Rules, any
response to InterDigital's June 20, 2012 Motion to Compel is currently due on Monday July 2,
2012. By July 5, 2012, which is within three calendar days (including the July 4
th
holiday) of the
response's due date, the Commission will decide whether to grant InterDigital's petition for
review of Order No. 30. If the Commission declines review and adopts Order No. 30 as a final
determination, LG will no longer be a party to this Investigation and the Motion to Compel
would be rendered moot. In that case, LG and the Staff would have expanded substantial
resources in responding to a Motion to Compel that would become irrelevant just days after the
filing of any response brief. To make matters worse, the ALJ will unnecessarily face the
additional burden of receiving multiple voluminous submissions, including supporting
declarations and large exhibits on July 2. Thus, the current July 2 due date for the response to
the Motion to Compel creates an unnecessary burden on the parties and the ALJ.
A short one-week extension of time to respond to the Motion to Compel from July 2 to
July 9 would, however, allow an orderly and logical disposition to that motion. If the
Commission denies the petition and terminates LG, no party – including the Staff and LG – will
have responded to the mooted Motion to Compel, thereby avoiding unnecessary work and
conserving precious resources. If the Commission grants the petition, then LG will file its
opposition brief, along with supporting declarations and exhibits, on July 9, and the ALJ will
have ample time to address the Motion to Compel before the close of fact discovery on July 25,
2012. Regardless of how the Commission decides the petition, waiting for the Commission's
decision on the pending petition for review will benefit all parties and conserve resources.
4
Waiting a mere one week will not prejudice InterDigital. After all, InterDigital has
known that the parties were at an impasse regarding this dispute since at least as early as May 24,
2012, as it readily concedes in its own moving papers. [Memo. in support of Motion No. 800-
102, at 3 (indicating May 24, 2012, as date of meet and confer at which LG and InterDigital
reached an impasse on this issue).] Yet, InterDigital waited nearly one full month before filing
its Motion to Compel on June 20, and then unreasonably denied LG's requested one-week
extension to respond. Other parties, including LG and the Staff, should not suffer simply
because InterDigital, having belatedly filed its Motion to Compel with only a month left before
the close of fact discovery, is now trying to make-up for lost time. InterDigital has only itself to
blame for any perceived prejudice caused by its procrastination and delay. The true prejudice
here is InterDigital's improper attempt to force LG, the Staff, and the other parties in this
Investigation to expend limited resources to respond to a Motion to Compel which will
potentially become moot within days of the response due date.
To avoid this prejudice and allow for timely consideration of this motion for extension of
time, LG respectfully requests a shortened response time for any party that wish to respond and
expedited consideration of this motion. Specifically, LG requests that InterDigital be ordered to
file any response to this motion within 24 hours of LG’s filing and service of the motion.
Moreover, LG respectfully requests that the ALJ consider and rule on LG’s motion at the earliest
opportunity. Without such shortened response time and expedited consideration, InterDigital's
date for filing its opposition to this motion will be after LG's due date to respond to the Motion to
Compel, thus resulting in substantial prejudice to LG and the other parties.
III. CONCLUSION
For the reasons discussed above, LG respectfully requests that the ALJ consider this
motion on an expedited basis, shorten the time for InterDigital to submit a response to the
5
present motion to 24 hours, and grant all parties in this Investigation an extension of time until
July 9, 2012, to file a response to InterDigital's Motion to Compel, filed against LG on June 20,
2012.
Respectfully submitted,
FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
Dated: June 25, 2012