Slaughter et al v. Uponor, Inc. et al

Filing 836

ORDER that 739 Motion re: Discovery is DENIED Signed by Chief Judge Robert C. Jones on 4/25/13. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

6
EDWIN K. SLAUGHTER et al.,

11

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

12

This is a class action arising out of the manufacture and installation of defective “yellow

7
Plaintiffs,
8
vs.
9
UPONOR, INC. et al.,
10
Defendants.

2:08-cv-01223-RCJ-GWF
ORDER

13

brass” plumbing fittings into 100,000 or more homes in the Las Vegas area. Defendant RCR

14

Plumbing and Mechanical, Inc. (“RCR”) has asked the Court to order Plaintiffs to transfer

15

extracted plumbing fittings from Plaintiffs’ own warehouse to a third-party storage facility such

16

as Litigation Services. RCR argues that they have no privacy when visiting Plaintiff’s warehouse

17

and must notify Plaintiffs 48 hours in advance before visiting. Plaintiffs respond that Litigation

18

Services can only store approximately 600 bankers boxes, and that Plaintiffs’ warehouse already

19

contains many more boxes of materials than this. Plaintiffs also note that a company such as

20

Litigation Services will require 48 hours notice before inspection, just as Plaintiffs do, and that

21

visitors to Plaintiffs’ warehouse have as much privacy as they would have at a third-party

22

location. Plaintiffs note that they are amenable to constructing a private meeting room within

23

their warehouse if RCR desires but that RCR’s only “met and confer” with respect to the present

24

motion was a “take it or leave it” demand letter.

25

The Court denies the motion. Plaintiffs may store their own evidence, just as RCR may

1

store its own evidence if it extracts plumbing components during a Chapter 40 inspection. There

2

is no indication that Plaintiffs have denied RCR or any other Defendant reasonable access to the

3

evidence. RCR may argue authenticity issues to the Court or tampering issues to the jury at trial

4

if it has a good faith basis to make such arguments.

5

CONCLUSION

6

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion (ECF No. 739) is DENIED.

7

IT IS SO ORDERED.

8

Dated this 25th day of April, 2013.
Dated this 2nd day of April, 2013.

9
10
11

___________________________________
ROBERT C. JONES
United States District Judge

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 2 of 2