Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-02266/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-02266-25/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 410
Nature of Suit: Antitrust
Cause of Action: 15:15 Antitrust Litigation

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

Advanced Microtherm, Inc., et al.,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

Norman Wright Mechanical Equipment

Corporation, et al.,

Defendants. /

NO. C 04-02266 JW 

ORDER OVERRULING PLAINTIFFS’

OBJECTION TO RECOMMENDED

DISCOVERY ORDER NUMBER

TWENTY-FIVE

This case arises out of disputes between a number of corporations and individuals over

various large construction projects. Plaintiffs Advanced Microtherm, Inc. (“AMT”) and HVAC

Sales, Inc. (“HVAC”) (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) are California corporations in the business of

obtaining orders for manufacturers of commercial and industrial ventilation systems. Defendants are

corporations and individuals involved in the construction industry, including: other businesses that

obtain orders for manufacturers of ventilation systems, landowners, construction engineering firms,

construction management firms, architectural firms, and their employees. 

In Recommended Discovery Order Number Twenty-Five (“RDO25"), the Special Master

ordered as follows:

Plaintiffs may schedule and take those depositions, identified in Discovery Order

Number Twenty, and not yet taken. Those are the depositions of John McDonald, George

Speights, Kritchfield designee, Kevin Trohill, Steve Dobberstein (to completion), Tempco

designee, Spencer designee, AMEC designee, and Ove Arup PMK. 

In addition, plaintiffs may take, as ordered previously in Discovery Order Number

Twenty, the deposition of a Norman S. Wright designee(s) regarding costs. 

Case 5:04-cv-02266-JW Document 419 Filed 11/09/07 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Plaintiffs' request to depose Zack Burke, Grady Shirley, and David Lewis is

DENIED. Those depositions are not contemplated by Discovery Order Twenty, which was

the product of extensive negotiation between counsel and several hearings with the Special

Master. Further, all three of those witnesses were known to plaintiffs many months ago and

their depositions could have been requested in the course of working out the existing

discovery plan. . . . 

All those depositions allowed by this order must be completed on or before

November 9, 2007. Counsel are to meet and confer with regard to scheduling these

depositions. To the extent that any depositions remain unscheduled, the Special Mater will

set the schedule in the course of a telephone conference hearing on October 24, 2007.

Plaintiffs object to RDO25 for the following reasons: 

1) Plaintiffs object to the Special Master’s denial of Plaintiffs’ request to take the

depositions of Mr. Blake, Mr. Sherley, and Mr. Lewis, or other necessary deponents;

and 

2) Plaintiffs object to the date that the Special Master has ordered all of the above

referenced depositions to be completed. 

(Docket Item No. 407.) Plaintiffs also noted that the subject matter of their objection was

inextricably related “to the purpose upon which this Court . . . called for a Case Management

Conference on October 30, 2007.” (Id.) They therefore requested that the Court consider their

objections as part of the Conference. (Id.) 

Plaintiffs made arguments concerning RDO25 at the Conference, and the Court considered

their arguments before issuing an Order that same day. In that order, the Court DENIED Plaintiffs’

requests and referred the parties to the Special Master “to resolve any further disputes concerning

the scope and timing of discovery.” (Docket Item No. 412.)

Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs’ Objection to RDO25. Any further deposition

scheduling disputes shall be raised before the Special Master for his determination.

Dated: November 9, 2007 

JAMES WARE

United States District Judge

Case 5:04-cv-02266-JW Document 419 Filed 11/09/07 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT COPIES OF THIS ORDER HAVE BEEN DELIVERED TO:

Bruce Harry Winkelman bwinkelman@Craig-Winkelman.com

Dennis P. Fitzsimons dfitzsimons@bjg.com

Flora F Vigo fvigo@omm.com

George Fred Salamy george.salamy@mccurdylawyers.com

Janette George Leonidou jleonidou@alr-law.com

Jeffrey Gordon Nevin jnevin@ecplslaw.com

Jill Battilega Rowe jrowe@cwclaw.com

John Morwick Ross jross@cwclaw.com

Joseph M. Alioto jmalioto@aliotolaw.com

Julie Dawn Wood jwood@omm.com

Kenneth Lawrence Mahaffey kmahaffey@pecklaw.com

Lisa Dritsas Wright lwright@alr-law.com

Lisa Dritsas Wright lwright@alr-law.com

Maria Giardina maria.giardina@sdma.com

Mark Ewell Ellis mellis@ecplslaw.com

Matthew A. Fischer matthew.fischer@sdma.com

Maureen Ellen McTague maureen_sandoval@gensler.com

Merrit Jones mjones@cwclaw.com

Michael Frederick Tubach mtubach@omm.com

Paul B. Lahaderne paul.lahaderne@sdma.com

Peter Michael Hart p.hart@wrightrobinson.com

Russell F. Brasso brasso@foremanandbrasso.com

Russell F. Brasso brasso@foremanandbrasso.com

Stephen D. Kaus skaus@cwclaw.com

Steven Ellis Conigliaro sconigliaro@omm.com

Stuart E. Jones sjones@wrightrobinson.com

Thomas Charles Tagliarini tagliarinilaw@aol.com

Thomas H R Denver tdenver@mediationmasters.com

William Hugh McInerney wjr@mcinerney-dillon.com

Dated: November 9, 2007 Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

By: /s/ JW Chambers 

Elizabeth Garcia

Courtroom Deputy

Case 5:04-cv-02266-JW Document 419 Filed 11/09/07 Page 3 of 3