Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Wetherell v. ClimateMaster

May 26, 2009

DONNA WETHERELL AND ROBIN WETHERELL, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS CLASS ACTION REPRESENTATIVES, PLAINTIFFS,
v.
CLIMATEMASTER, INC., DEFENDANT.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Clifford J. Proud U. S. Magistrate Judge

ORDER

PROUD, Magistrate Judge

Non-party Enertech is before the Court seeking to quash a subpoena propounded by plaintiffs Donna and Robin Wetherell. (Docs. 74 and 75). Also before the Court is plaintiffs' response in opposition (Doc. 76), to which Enertech filed a reply (Doc. 77).

The subpoena commanded Enertech to produce documents by April 229, 2009, and appear for deposition on May 6, 2009. The subject motion to quash was filed at 2:00 p.m. on May 5, 2009-- after document production was due and on the eve of the deposition. The deposition aspect of the subpoena is not specifically addressed, but the Court appreciates that the plaintiffs' focus is the requested documents, and the deposition would likely be used to discuss those documents. The subpoena was propounded on or about April 13, 2009, so the motion to quash certainly could have been filed at an earlier date. In any event, the Court will consider the motion, because plaintiffs have not opted to make the timeliness an issue.

The subpoena seeks the following, limited in time to 1995 to the present:

1. Communications regarding air coils and related failures of Climate Master Units;

2. Documents, data and information collected and maintained regarding reported air coil failures and related problems in ClimateMaster Units;

3. The identity of dealers who purchased Climate Master Geotherman Units;

4. The identity of customers and/or purchasers who purchased Climate-Master Geotherman Units; and

5. Air coil corrosion in geothermal units.

Enertech makes the following objections:

1. Plaintiffs failed to tender the $40.00 witness fee;

2. Enertech would be required to disclose confidential business practices and customer information to a chief competitor (ClimateMaster); and

3. Compliance would impose an undue burden, in terms of time and expense, on a non-party, in a situation where ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.