Allagas et al v. BP Solar International, Inc. et al

Filing 123

ORDER by Magistrate Judge Elizabeth D. Laporte. If Plaintiffs oppose Defendants sampling proposal, they are ordered to file a response of no more than four pages outlining their objections, and a declaration explaining why Defendants proposal wil l not produce a statistically significant sample of warranty claims for proof of common defect if they dispute that contention. Any such opposition shall be filed no later than October 9, 2015. If Plaintiffs do not oppose Defendants proposal, the Parties are ordered to file a proposed order to that effect by October 13, 2015. (shyS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/5/2015)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

MICHAEL ALLAGAS, et al.,

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

Plaintiffs,
8
v.

ORDER

9
BP SOLAR INTERNATIONAL, INC., et
al.,

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

Re: Dkt. Nos. 121, 122

Defendants.

12
13

On July 28, 2015, Plaintiffs filed a motion to compel production of international warranty
claims and soldering instructions. On September 16, 2015, this Court issued an order on that motion

14
stating that:

15
16
17
18
19

[P]rovided that Defendant BP unequivocally agrees that it will not
argue that the defect alleged by Plaintiffs is only tied to particular
manufacturing plants, or that the effect of the alleged defect varies
based on the plant of manufacture, or make similar arguments tied to
the plant of manufacture, Plaintiffs do not have a sufficient need for
additional evidence relevant to common defect to outweigh the
burden of additional production of all German claims, as Plaintiffs
now request.
(Dkt. 120 at 2.) On September 30, 2015, Plaintiffs filed a letter indicating that Defendant BP is

20
unwilling to make this agreement and requesting that the Court order BP to produce all
21
international warranty claims. On October 1, 2015, Defendant responded, offering to produce a
22
random sample of 1,000 warranty claims for panels produced at its factories in Madrid and
23
Bangalore. Defendant argues that such a production will provide Plaintiffs with statistically
24
significant data for proof of common defect for panels produced at those factories. (See Harvey
25
Decl. ¶¶ 6-7.) As to panels produced at Defendant’s other two factories in Maryland and Sydney,
26
Defendant argues that its production of claims from the United States and Australia is sufficient.
27
(See id. ¶¶ 2-3.)
28

1

Accordingly, if Plaintiffs oppose Defendant’s sampling proposal, they are ordered to file a

2

response of no more than four pages outlining their objections, and a declaration explaining why

3

Defendant’s proposal will not produce a statistically significant sample of warranty claims for

4

proof of common defect if they dispute that contention. Any such opposition shall be filed no

5

later than October 9, 2015. If Plaintiffs do not oppose Defendant’s proposal, the Parties are

6

ordered to file a proposed order to that effect by October 13, 2015.

7
8

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 5, 2015

9
________________________
ELIZABETH D. LAPORTE
United States Magistrate Judge

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2