# In re Cedar Shake & Shingle Antitrust Litigation > District Court, W.D. Washington · January 2, 2020 URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10700217 ## Case - **Court:** District Court, W.D. Washington - **Decided:** January 2, 2020 - **Opinion:** 100trialcourt - **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library ## Citator (automated) - No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases. - Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10700217 ## Opinion text 1 2 3 HON. MARSHA J. PECHMAN 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 8 AT SEATTLE 9 IN RE CEDAR SHAKE & SHINGLE ANTITRUST LITIGATION NO. 2:19-cv-00288-MJP 10 This Document Relates to: UNOPPOSED MOTION AND ORDER GRANTING LETTER 11 ALL CLASS ACTIONS ROGATORY RE: DOCUMENT SUBPOENA TO INTERTEK 12 TESTING SERVICES, NA LTD. 13 NOTE ON MOTION CALENDAR: December 31, 2019 14 15 I. UNOPPOSED MOTION 16 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 28(b)(3) and 28 U.S.C. § 1781(b)(2), Class 17 Plaintiffs move this Court for an Order issuing the attached Letter Rogatory to the appropriate 18 authorities in British Columbia, Canada for documents from Intertek Testing Services, NA Ltd. 19 (“Intertek”), the third-party inspector with which Defendant Cedar Shake and Shingle Bureau 20 (“CSSB”) has an inspection services agreement. Class Plaintiffs seek documents as described 21 in the attached Exhibit A. 22 Courts have the inherent authority to issue Letters Rogatory and Letters of Request to 23 Foreign nations, and may request that a foreign nation order a witness to provide testimony that 1 will aid in the resolution of a matter pending in the United States. See United States v. Reagan, 2 453 F.2d 165, 172 (6th Cir. 1971); United States v. Staples, 256 F.2d 290, 292 (9th Cir. 1958). 3 In addition, federal statutes provide for the issuance of Letters Rogatory by a federal court. 4 Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 28(b)(1), a deposition may be taken in a foreign country 5 pursuant to the issuance of a Letter Rogatory. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1781(b)(2), a tribunal in the 6 United States may directly transmit a Letter Rogatory or request to a foreign or international 7 tribunal. The British Columbia Evidence Act also provides that a court outside of Canada may 8 serve Letters Rogatory upon a Canadian court. See British Columbia Evidence Act, R.S.B.C. 9 1996, C. 124 § 53. 10 On applications for the issuance of Letters Rogatory, the Court will not ordinarily weigh 11 the evidence to be elicited, nor will the Court determine whether the witnesses will be able to 12 provide the anticipated testimony. B&L Drilling Electronics v. Totco, 87 F.R.D. 543, 545 13 (W.D. Okla. 1978). Rather, “good reason” must be shown for denying the issuance of a Letter 14 Rogatory. Zassenhaus v. Evening Star Newspaper Co., 404 F.2d 1361, 1364 (D.C. Cir. 1968). 15 Here, Class Plaintiffs have been informed by Intertek that it will produce documents as 16 sought in the attached Exhibit A only in response to a filed court Order. Thus, it is necessary to 17 compel production of documents through a Letter Rogatory. 18 Class Plaintiffs seek documents from Defendant CSSB’s sole inspection entity to 19 provide further evidence to prove the allegations in their Second Amended Complaints. For 20 example, Class Plaintiffs allege that Defendants have (and have wielded) the power to prevent 21 the sale of cedar shakes and shingles (“CSS”) made by CSSB member (“Member”) mills by 22 “red tagging” product—preventing its sale—until the product is re-graded or re-inspected by 23 CSSB’s auditor, Clay Walker, or Intertek acting under Clay Walker’s supervision. See, e.g., 1 Direct Purchaser Pls.’ Second Am. Class Action Compl. (“DPP SAC”), ECF No. 53 ¶ 182. 2 Class Plaintiffs thus seek documents related to, among other things, Intertek’s role as the 3 inspection agency for CSSB Members and any documents related to Intertek’s “decision to ‘red 4 tag’ any CSSB Member.” See Ex. A. They also seek documents in Intertek’s possession, 5 custody, or control relating to “the probation, potential probation, termination or potential 6 termination of a CSSB Member or Members from CSSB,” and the “competitive conditions” for 7 CSS. Id. Class Plaintiffs have volunteered to pay reasonable fees and judicial costs associated 8 with the requested production of records. The Court does not adopt these allegations as findings 9 of fact or law. 10 Defendants do not oppose the issuance of a Letter Rogatory compelling the documents 11 identified in Exhibit A to the attached Letter Rogatory. Defendants’ non-opposition is made 12 without prejudice to its right to oppose the introduction of any documents or information 13 obtained from Intertek based on any objection allowed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 14 or other applicable law. Defendants expressly reserve all evidentiary and trial objections. 15 Defendants further reserve the right to obtain from Class Plaintiffs copies of all documents 16 obtained from Intertek pursuant to the Letter Rogatory. Finally, Defendants contend that 17 CSSB’s agreement with Intertek does not prohibit Intertek from providing inspection services 18 to manufacturers of CSS that are not Members of CSSB. 19 Christopher J. Cormier By:s/ Kim D. Stephens BURNS CHAREST LLP Kim D. Stephens, WSBA #11984 20 5290 Denver Tech Center Pkway, #150 Kaleigh N. Powell, WSBA #52684 Greenwood Village, CO 80111 Jason T. Dennett, WSBA #30686 21 Telephone: (720) 630-2092 Chase C. Alvord, WSBA #26080 Email: ccormier@burnscharest.com TOUSLEY BRAIN STEPHENS PLLC 22 1700 Seventh Avenue, Suite 2200 Seattle, WA 98101 23 Telephone: (206) 682-5600 Facsimile: (206) 682-2992 1 Warren T. Burns Email: kstephens@tousley.com Spencer M. Cox jdennett@tousley.com 2 William B. Thompson kpowell@tousley.com BURNS CHAREST LLP calvord@tousley.com 3 900 Jackson Street, Suite 500 Dallas, TX 75202 Paul Gallagher (admitted pro hac vice) 4 Telephone: (469) 904-4550 James J. Pizzirusso (admitted pro hac vice) Email: wburns@burnscharest.com Nathaniel C. Giddings (admitted pro hac vice) 5 scox@burnscharest.com HAUSFELD LLP wthompson@burnscharest.com 1700 K. St., NW, Suite 650 6 Washington, DC 20006 Lydia A. Wright Telephone: 202-540-7200 7 BURNS CHAREST LLP Facsimile: 202-540-7201 365 Canal Street, Suite 1170 Email: pgallagher@hausfeld.com 8 New Orleans, LA 70130 jpizzirusso@hausfeld.com Telephone: (504) 799-2845 ngiddings@hausfeld.com 9 Email: lwright@burnscharest.com Bonny Sweeney (admitted pro hac vice) 10 Keith Dubanevich Samantha Stein (admitted pro hac vice) Keil M. Mueller HAUSFELD LLP 11 Lydia Anderson-Dana 600 Montgomery Street, Suite 3200 STOLL BERNE San Francisco, CA 94111 12 209 SW Oak Street, Suite 500 Telephone: 415-633-1908 Portland, OR 97204 Facsimile: 415-217-6813 13 Telephone: (503) 227-1600 Email: bsweeney@hausfeld.com Email: kdubanevich@stollberne.com sstein@hausfeld.com 14 kmueller@stollberne.com landersondana@stollberne.com Co-Lead Counsel for the Proposed Direct 15 Purchaser Class Co-Lead Counsel for the Proposed Reseller 16 Plaintiff Classes Larry D. Lahman (admitted pro hac vice) Roger L. Ediger (admitted pro hac vice) 17 Gregory J. Hollon, WSBA #26311 MITCHELL DeCLERCK McNAUL EBEL NAWROT & HELGREN 202 West Broadway Avenue 18 PLLC Enid, Oklahoma 73701 600 University Street, Suite 2700 Tel.: 580-234-5144 19 Seattle, WA 98101 Fax: 580-234-8890 Telephone: (206) 467-1816 Email: larry.lahman@sbcglobal.net 20 Facsimile: (206) 624-5128 rle@mdpllc.com Email: ghollon@mcnaul.com 21 Liaison Counsel for the Proposed Reseller 22 Plaintiff Classes 23 1 Mark Griffin, WSBA #1629 Raymond J. Farrow, WSBA #31782 2 Karin B. Swope, WSBA #24015 KELLER ROHRBACK LLP 3 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200 Seattle, WA 98101 4 Telephone: (206) 623-1900 Facsimile: (206) 623-3384 5 Email: mgriffin@kellerrohrback.com rfarrow@kellerrohrback.com 6 kswope@kellerrohrback.com 7 Brian D. Clark W. Joseph Bruckner 8 Elizabeth R. Odette Arielle S. Wagner 9 LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN PLLP 100 Washington Ave. S., Suite 2200 10 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Telephone: (612) 339-6900 11 Facsimile: (612) 339-0981 Email: wjbruckner@locklaw.com 12 erodette@locklaw.com bdclark@locklaw.com 13 aswagner@locklaw.com 14 Co-Lead Counsel for the Proposed End User Plaintiff Classes 15 16 II. ORDER 17 Upon consideration of the pleadings, declarations, and orders filed to date in this case, 18 the Court finds and orders as follows: 19 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED THAT: 20 The Court, having reviewed the submitted material and relevant authority, and upon 21 consideration of the pleadings, declarations, and orders filed to date in this case, and therefore 22 being fully informed, GRANTS Class Plaintiffs’ Unopposed Motion for Letter Rogatory Re: 23 1 Document Subpoena to Intertek Testing Services, NA Ltd., and will execute the Letter 2 Rogatory without delay. 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 DATED this _2nd_ day of _January_, 2020. 5 6 _____________________________________ A 7 8 Marsha J. Pechman United States Senior District Judge 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 2 I hereby certify that on January 2, 2020, I electronically filed the foregoing with the 3 Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system which will send notification of such filing to all 4 parties registered on the CM/ECF system. All other parties (if any) shall be served in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 5 DATED at Seattle, Washington, this 2nd day of January, 2020. 6 7 s/ Kim D. Stephens Kim D. Stephens 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10700217. Public record. Not legal advice.