Home > News > Industry News > Court Continues to Confirm Discovery Details in Price-Fixing Suit

Court Continues to Confirm Discovery Details in Price-Fixing Suit

Post Time:Jul 16,2009Classify:Industry NewsView:350

The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania issued an order last week announcing that the parties in the case still have not reached an agreement on several matters involving future discovery in the case (CLICK HERE for related story). Plaintiffs include Maran-Wurzell Glass & Mirror, Gilkey Window Co. Inc., Greenwood Glass Co., Thermo Twin Industries Inc., as well as many others. (CLICK HERE for related story, including a full list of plaintiffs.) The defendants are: Guardian Industries Corp.; Pilkington North America Inc. and Pilkington Holding Inc. (together, Pilkington); and PPG Industries. According to the order, the parties involved have not reached an agreement on the following matters:

"the custodian-based limitation on Defendants' search for documents and electronically stored information (ESI) responsive to certain document requests;" and
the format of the ESI.
The parties have previously agreed to an additional three-week period during which they'd try to reach an agreement-beginning on July 1. However, if an agreement is not reached within that three-week period, which soon will come to an end, those seeking discovery will be compelled to file a motion or brief by July 22; opposition to the motion will be due August 5; and reply briefs will be due on August 12. (CLICK HERE for full text of the recent order.)

Recently, John Evans of Specter Specter Evans & Manogue P.C. also filed a declaration in support of the plaintiffs' motion in the class-action suit requesting that one of the defendants, Guardian Industries, submit a variety of documents previously requested of all the defendants. (CLICK HERE for full text of that document.)

Plaintiffs allege that the manufacturers agreed to raise and fix prices "through a combination of collusive energy surcharges and price increases."

The manufacturers previously had motioned for the judge to dismiss the suit-and the motion was denied in February.

Source: usgnnAuthor: shangyi

Hot News

返回顶部