United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Seattle
PAULA WETZEL AND JOEL WETZEL, ON BEHALF OF THEMSELVES AND OTHER SIMILARLY SITUATED PERSONS, Plaintiffs,
CERTAINTEED CORPORATION, Defendant.
JOINT STATUS REPORT RE: MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER
ON PLAINTIFFS' DISCOVERY REQUESTS; [PROPOSED] ORDER
Honorable Richard A. Jones, United States District Judge.
and Plaintiffs submit the following Joint Status Report.
August 21, 2017, the parties conducted a telephonic meeting
and conferring to find a compromise resolution on
Defendant's Motion for a Protective Order (Dkt. #33). The
parties reached certain compromises concerning the limits of
discovery related to Defendant's shingles, including
without limitation warranty claims and sales data, unless for
good cause the Court or Defendant permits otherwise. The
parties also have two disputes which they cannot resolve.
The Parties' Agreements
Relevant shingles shall be those installed in Washington on
buildings whose date of completed construction was in 2004,
2005, 2006, or 2007.
a. As a caveat of Defendant concerning discovery directed to
Defendant, Defendant acknowledges that it may have knowledge
of home construction dates based on claims made by shingle
owners, communications from shingle owners to Defendant, or
b. Defendant agrees to act in good faith to identify which
shingle owners have homes whose date of completed
construction may be in 2004, 2005, 2006, or 2007.
c. Plaintiffs acknowledge that via the meet and confer
process Defendant communicated the possibility that it may
not have complete information in its records because
Defendant typically does not know where shingles are
installed after shingles are sold to distributors unless a
warranty claim is made.
d. The parties acknowledge that third-party discovery may be
necessary to locate potentially relevant information, and
such third party discovery may provide information which
enables Defendant to locate additional, relevant information
or materials in its possession, custody or control.
Relevant shingles shall include shingles from Defendant's
in the future Plaintiffs believe that they have good cause to
pursue discovery related to shingles outside the scope of
these limits, agreed to in items (1) through (3), then the
parties shall meet and confer to reach a compromise on the
issue and work diligently to avoid having to bring the matter
to the Court for disposition.
The Parties' Remaining Disputes
Parties do not agree to the following discovery limitations,
and request that the Court ...