California Expanded Metal Products Company et al v. James Klein et al

Filing 307

ORDER ADOPTING 306 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION. The Court DENIES Plaintiffs' request for fees in relation to their motion to compel, and GRANTS the parties' stipulated motion to extend the deadlines for damages discovery and briefing reg arding damages. Damages discovery phase closes 8/5/2022. Plaintiffs' joint opening brief re damages to Mr. Walters is due by 8/26/2022. Joint response brief is due by 9/9/2022. Joint reply brief is due by 9/16/2022. Signed by Judge James L. Robart. (LH)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

8
9

CALIFORNIA EXPANDED
METAL PRODUCTS COMPANY,
et al.,

10
11
12

v.

13

CASE NO. C18-0659JLR
ORDER

Plaintiffs,

JAMES A. KLEIN, et al.,

14

Defendants.

15
16

Before the court is a report and recommendation issued by Special Master Mark

17

Walters recommending that the court: (1) deny Plaintiffs California Expanded Metal

18

Products Company (“CEMCO”) and Clarkwestern Dietrich Building Systems LLC’s

19

(“ClarkDietrich”) (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) request for fees in relation to their motion to

20

compel discovery from Defendants James A. Klein (“Klein”) and Safti-Seal, Inc.

21

(“Safti-Seal”) (collectively, “Defendants”) and non-party Seal4Safti, Inc. (“S4S”); and

22

//
ORDER - 1

1

(2) grant the parties’ stipulated motion to extend the deadlines for damages discovery and

2

briefing regarding damages. (R&R (Dkt. # 306) at 3-4.)

3

During the damages-related discovery portion of this action, Plaintiffs submitted a

4

motion to compel discovery from Defendants and S4S to Mr. Walters. (Id. at 2.) After

5

holding a hearing on Plaintiffs’ motion, Mr. Walters asked the parties to file a joint brief

6

“regarding the status of their discovery disputes and to identify any remaining issues for

7

resolution by the [c]ourt.” (Id.) In their joint brief, the parties informed Mr. Walters that

8

they reached an agreement “on all issues raised in Plaintiffs’ motion, save Plaintiffs’

9

request for fees as a discovery sanction pursuant Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5)(C).” (Id.) The

10

parties also submitted a stipulation to extend the deadlines for damages discovery and

11

briefing regarding damages. (Id.) Mr. Walters recommends that the court deny

12

Plaintiffs’ request for fees because: the “discovery as originally propounded to S4S was

13

overbroad”; the parties worked together to “narrow those requests, and ultimately reached

14

agreement on scope” without court intervention; “when this discovery dispute arose, S4S

15

and CEMCO were engaged in a jury trial in the Central District of California which

16

complicated their ability to fully discuss the dispute and reach agreement”; and Mr. Klein

17

“had no further documents for supplementation apart from what S4S was obligated to

18

produce, and it is unclear on this record whether he was under an obligation to participate

19

in the discovery conferences held between S4S and Plaintiffs.” (Id. at 3.) Additionally,

20

Mr. Walters recommends that the court grant the parties’ request to modify the schedule

21

for the damages phase of these contempt proceedings because good cause exists for the

22

//
ORDER - 2

1

requested extension. (Id. at 3-4; see also 4/27/22 Order (Dkt. # 305) (setting forth the

2

current damages phase schedule).)

3

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 53(f), the court must decide de novo

4

all objections to the findings of fact or conclusions of law made or recommended by a

5

special master. Fed. R. Civ. P. 53(f)(3)-(4). Here, no party objects to either of Mr.

6

Walters’s recommendations. (See generally Dkt.) The court has reviewed Mr. Walters’s

7

report and recommendation in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 53(f), the

8

relevant portions of the record, and the applicable law. Having done so, the court finds

9

Mr. Walters’s reasoning persuasive and independently reaches the same conclusions for

10

the reasons articulated by Mr. Walters. Accordingly, the court ADOPTS the report and

11

recommendation in its entirety (Dkt. # 306); DENIES Plaintiffs’ request for fees in

12

relation to their motion to compel; and GRANTS the parties’ stipulated motion to extend

13

the deadlines for damages discovery and briefing regarding damages as follows:

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

//

22

//

EVENT

CURRENT
DEADLINE

NEW DEADLINE

Damages discovery phase closes

July 5, 2022

August 5, 2022

Plaintiffs file a joint opening brief
regarding damages to Mr. Walters

July 29, 2022

August 26, 2022

Defendants and S4S file a joint
responsive brief to Mr. Walters

August 12, 2022

September 9, 2022

Plaintiffs file a joint reply brief to
Mr. Walters / Noting Date

August 19, 2022

September 16, 2022

ORDER - 3

1

Dated this 8th day of July, 2022.

2

A

3

JAMES L. ROBART
United States District Judge

4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
ORDER - 4