Charles-Khalil Batrouny

This decision addresses a motion by non-settling defendants (Watts Water Technologies) to expand a Pierringer Agreement order.

The non-settling defendants sought to include provisions allowing them to use discovery transcripts of settling defendants at trial, serve requests to admit, and compel testimony from settling defendant representatives.

The court denied these requests, finding them premature and matters best left to the trial judge's discretion.

The court emphasized that a model order for class actions should be tailored to specific circumstances and not automatically applied to non-class actions.

A case conference was held to establish a timetable for three actions arising from a water loss incident.

The moving party confirmed it owned the water heater and did not retain maintenance services, leading the responding parties to seek instructions to dismiss the action against the rental and maintenance companies.

The parties agreed to a schedule for discoveries and to an order that the three actions be tried together.

Three actions were brought arising out of a water loss incident.

The defendant sought a timetable for the conduct of the actions due to the complexity of scheduling examinations for discovery with multiple parties.

The court directed the defendant to provide information regarding the ownership and maintenance of the water heater to determine if Enercare or Reliance Home Comfort are proper parties.

The case conference was adjourned to establish the timetable and determine the status of the actions against the water heater companies.

The court also indicated a willingness to order the three actions to be tried together upon consent of the parties.