Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Wetzel v. Certainteed Corp.

United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Seattle

September 6, 2017

PAULA WETZEL AND JOEL WETZEL, ON BEHALF OF THEMSELVES AND OTHER SIMILARLY SITUATED PERSONS, Plaintiffs,
v.
CERTAINTEED CORPORATION, Defendant.

          JOINT STATUS REPORT RE: MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER ON PLAINTIFFS' DISCOVERY REQUESTS; [PROPOSED] ORDER

          The Honorable Richard A. Jones, United States District Judge.

         JOINT STATUS REPORT

         Defendant and Plaintiffs submit the following Joint Status Report.

         On 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.

         A. The Parties' Agreements

         1. 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 other records.
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.

         2. Relevant shingles shall include shingles from Defendant's Landmark series.

         3. If 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.

         B. The Parties' Remaining Disputes

         The Parties do not agree to the following discovery limitations, and request that the Court ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.