Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-00560/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-00560-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Petition for Removal

---

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL ALLAGAS, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

BP SOLAR INTERNATIONAL, INC., et 

al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 14-cv-00560-SI (EDL)

ORDER ON MOTION TO COMPEL

Re: Dkt. No. 56

On January 26, 2015, Plaintiffs filed this motion to compel against Defendant BP Solar 

International, Inc. (“Defendant”). On March 3, 2015, the Court held a hearing at which it ordered 

the Parties to meet and confer on the motion. Subsequently, the Parties stated on the record that 

they had resolved all the issues presented in the motion except for their dispute regarding requests 

for production numbers 17-19.

Each of these requests pertain to documents related to claims made by owners of the solar 

panels at issue. Defendant argues that because the complaint alleges defects in its solar panel 

junction boxes, it should only have to produce documents related to claims that concern junction 

box failure, which Defendant defines as claims that either “exhibit[] the ‘signature’ characteristics 

described in the [complaint]” or were “identified by either the claimant, [Defendant’s] own 

analysis or any third-party inspection as caused by a failure of the junction box.” (Opp. at 21.)1 

Plaintiffs dispute Defendant’s characterization of the complaint, noting that they allege violations 

of “a number of representations and warranties made by [Defendant] to purchasers” concerning 

the solar panels that “extend well beyond failure of the junction box.” (Reply at 13.) Plaintiffs 

 

1 Defendant stated at the hearing that it would not limit its responses to “warranty claims, requests 

for repair or service, or lawsuits or other legal proceedings” as argued in its opposition. (See Opp. 

at 20 (internal quotation marks omitted).) 

Case 3:14-cv-00560-SI Document 66 Filed 03/19/15 Page 1 of 3
2

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

Northern District of California

also object that Defendant’s definition of junction box failure is based on Defendant’s own 

judgment as consumers “do not know why their panels failed.” (Id. at 14.) Therefore, Plaintiffs 

ask that Defendant be compelled to produce documents related to all claims made by owners of 

the solar panels at issue.

Although Plaintiffs allege various violations of warranties and representations made by 

Defendant, the complaint alleges that junction box failure is the underlying cause of those 

violations. (See Cmplt. ¶ 53 (“The representations and warranties made by BP concerning the 

Solar Panels were false because: (1) the defect in the junction box significantly limited or 

completely eliminated the ability of the Solar Panels to produce electricity while posing serious 

risks of property damage and personal injury; and (2) the Solar Panels would not save the property 

owner money or increase the value of the property.”).) The defect is the alleged reason that the 

solar panels did not save money and increase the value of the owner’s property as represented. 

(See Cmplt. ¶¶ 15-23 (describing the defect in the solar panels).) Furthermore, all of the named 

Plaintiffs allege claims for which junction box failure is the root cause. Plaintiff Allagas alleges 

that “at no time did anyone . . . inform Allagas of the known junction box defect and potential fire 

safety risk of the Solar Panels.” (Id. ¶ 89.) Plaintiffs allege that the “fire safety risk” is a result of 

the junction box defect. (Id. ¶¶ 18-19.) Plaintiff Allagas also alleges that he “was informed that 

[his] Solar Panels had burned junction boxes and the glass surface of two Solar Panels had 

shattered as a result of the resulting heat.” (Id. ¶ 96.) The result of this failure was an increased 

electrical bill that Allagas alleges breached Defendant’s warranties. (Id. ¶ 98.) Plaintiff Ray also 

alleges junction box defects which resulted in an increased electrical bill. (Id. ¶¶ 112-114.) 

Similarly, Plaintiff Mohrman alleges that “[a]s a result of the junction box failures, Mohrman’s 

solar system was completely inoperable and failed to generate power levels promised in the Power 

Warranty.” (Id. ¶ 127.)

Thus, Plaintiffs’ requests are overbroad to the extent that they seek documents pertaining 

to claims unrelated to junction box failure, as Plaintiffs assert no free-standing claims for breach of 

warranties or representations that are independent of junction box failure. Nevertheless, Plaintiffs

are correct that some claimants do not know why their solar panels failed. Defendant’s proposal 

Case 3:14-cv-00560-SI Document 66 Filed 03/19/15 Page 2 of 3
3

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

Northern District of California

does go beyond their customers who identified the junction boxes as the culprit, by also including

claims that “exhibit[] the ‘signature’ characteristics” identified in the complaint or were “identified 

by . . . [Defendant’s] own analysis or any third-party inspection as caused by a failure of the 

junction box.” Plaintiffs have not pointed out any other reliable method of identifying additional 

claims due to the junction box defect, but if they believe in good faith that such a method exists, 

they should meet and confer with Defendants on expanding the search accordingly for claims 

relevant to request numbers 17-19. If the Parties cannot agree, they may submit a joint letter by 

April 3, 2015, of no more than five pages updating the Court as to what dispute remains.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 19, 2015

______________________________________

Elizabeth D. Laporte

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:14-cv-00560-SI Document 66 Filed 03/19/15 Page 3 of 3