Opinion
CASE NO. 06-5706 KLS.
October 15, 2007
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY and DIRECTING THE PARTIES TO MEET AND CONFER
This matter comes before the Court on the Plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration (Dkt. # 56) of this Court's denial of the Plaintiffs Motion to Compel Discovery (Dkt. #55). The Defendant filed no objection to the Motion for Reconsideration but does continue to oppose the extent of requested discovery.
As Jeffery Campiche notes in his Declaration (Dkt. #48) he also represents plaintiffs in Ongpituk v. The Coleman Company, Inc., No. 06-01779 Z. The Ongpituk case involves many claims that are similar to the claim before this Court and revolve around the use of a Coleman Powermate 5045 propane heater.
A similar motion to compel discovery was granted by Judge Zilly on August 27, 2007. The issues raised in that motion to compel revolve around the same issues that are present in this claim. Therefore, the plaintiffs' motion to compel is hereby GRANTED to the same extent as granted by Judge Zilly.
Case Coordination of Discovery — Meet and Confer: The Ongpituk case was filed in Seattle on December 13, 2006 and has a trial date of February 19, 2008. The Daniel case was filed on December 13, 2006 in Tacoma and has a March 31, 2008 trial date. Both cases involve claims for wrongful death resulting from the use of a Coleman Powermate 5045 propane heater. While there are different plaintiffs in each case, the defendant is the same and there is a significant overlap of counsel in both cases.
The undersigned notes that there have been at least four motions filed in both cases with very similar, if not identical language, used in each motion. Filing similar, if not identical, motions in the two courts does not make good use of counsel's time or judicial resources.
While this Court does not know if there will be any more identical motions filed in both courts, the undersigned is directing counsel to prepare an agreed plan to coordinate motion practice and discovery with regard to similar issues in both cases. This plan must avoid any further duplicative motion practice and provide for coordinated use of discovery and depositions pertaining to issues that are common to both cases. The parties are directed to file such an agreed plan no later than November 2, 2007, or if no such plan is agreed to, file responses to this court's directive as to why such a plan is not agreed to or cannot be agreed to in this matter.