Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-02266/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-02266-20/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 DEFENDANT’S

OBJECTION TO RECOMMENDED

DISCOVERY ORDER NUMBER TWENTY

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 (“RDO20”), the Special Master granted

Plaintiffs’ request to depose one individual, designated as a Rule 30(b)(6) deponent, with regard

each of the five projects as to which discovery has been limited. Presently before the Court is

Defendant Norman Wright Mechanical Equipment Corporation’s (“NW”) Objection to Special

Master’s RDO20. Based on the papers submitted to date, the Court OVERRULES Defendant’s

objection.

Case 5:04-cv-02266-JW Document 367 Filed 09/21/07 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 2

RDO20 orders as follows:

Plaintiffs may depose one individual, designated as a PMK, with regard to each of

[the five] projects. Defendants have agreed to provide a PMK as broadly knowledgeable as

possible with regard to each project, including negotiations surrounding the project and

project costs. Plaintiffs have acknowledged that any such individual may not be

knowledgeable as to each and every category set forth in plaintiffs’ existing deposition

notice. Defendants will make good faith efforts to provide generally knowledgeable

witnesses who can respond as broadly as possible to the categories set forth in the

deposition notice. 

The deposition notice . . . is modified as follows: 

Category (f) is stricken. 

Category (g) may be responded to either in the already agreed “NSW’s PMK witness on

costs and San Bruno Jail” . . .

Category (h) is stricken. 

Category (i) is modified as follows: the words “and/or manufactures which Norman Wright

as represented” are stricken and the words “any time prior to that other entities’ final

actions relating to any of the said projects” are stricken and replaced by “any time up to

and including the completion of the bid process as to the five projects.” 

Category (j) is restricted to records relating to the five projects.

(Declaration of Matthew A. Fischer in Support of NW’ s Objection to RDO20, Ex. B, Docket Item

No. 357.) Defendant NW contends that the RDO20 is overbroad and burdensome. (NW’s Objection

to Special Master’s RDO20 at 1, Docket Item No. 356.) RDO20 changed the language of category

(i) in the deposition notice by, in part, replacing “any time prior to that other entities’ final actions

relating to any of said projects” to “any time up to and including the completion of the bid process as

to the five projects.” RDO20 likewise restricted category (j). 

The Court finds this language appropriately limits the scope of discovery to the five projects

as to which discovery has been permitted. Any specific disputes regarding whether discovery is

permissible for pre-1998 events should be raised before the Special Master for his determination. 

Accordingly, the Court OVERRULES Defendant’s Objection to Discovery Order Number Twenty.

Dated: September 21, 2007 

JAMES WARE

United States District Judge

Case 5:04-cv-02266-JW Document 367 Filed 09/21/07 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 H. Winkelman bwinkelman@Craig-Winkelman.com

Christopher T. Coco ccoco@provostumphrey.com

David B. Abramowitz dabramowitz@lordbissell.com

Dennis P. Fitzsimons dfitzsimons@bjg.com

Ethan L Shaw elshaw@moorelandrey.com

Flora F Vigo fvigo@omm.com

Gabriel G. Green ggreen@lordbissell.com

Janette George Leonidou jleonidou@alr-law.com

Jeffrey Gordon Nevin jnevin@ecplslaw.com

Jesse Thomas Rhodes trhodesiii@aol.com

Jill Battilega Rowe jrowe@cwclaw.com

John Morwick Ross jross@cwclaw.com

John T. Williams jwilliams@lordbissell.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 F. Tubach mtubach@omm.com

Paul Bartlett pbjatp@swbell.net

Paul B. Lahaderne paul.lahaderne@sdma.com

Peter Michael Hart p.hart@wrightrobinson.com

Pruett Moore pmooreiii@sbcglobal.net

Robert A. Goodin rgoodin@gmssr.com

Stephen D. Kaus skaus@cwclaw.com

Steven Ellis Conigliaro sconigliaro@omm.com

Stuart E. Jones sjones@wrightrobinson.com

Thomas C. Tagliarini tagliarinilaw@aol.com

Tommy L Yeates1 tyeates@moorelandrey.com

Wayne T. Lamprey wlamprey@gmssr.com

Zane D Negrych zanenegrych@sbcglobal.net

Dated: September 21, 2007 Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

By: /s/JW Chambers Elizabeth Garcia

Courtroom Deputy

Case 5:04-cv-02266-JW Document 367 Filed 09/21/07 Page 3 of 3