ORDER

J. RANDAL HALL, District Judge.

During the monthly discovery hearing on December 5, 2016, Plaintiff Whitesell Corporation ("Whitesell") raised objections to Defendants§ Third Request for Production of Documents.1 The Court heard oral argument on the issues presented by the requests arid deferred ruling until this written Order.

The objected-to requests may be grouped into two categories. The first category (RFP Nos. 1-4) requests documents including deposition transcripts and declarations of former and current Whitesell employees, expert-related material, and trial exhibits from unrelated cases in which Whitesell sought damages against third-party customers or suppliers since 2001, including but not limited to the case of Whitesell Corporation v. Whirlpool Corporation ("Whirlpool case") in the Western District of Michigan. The Court will refer to this category as "Damages Testimony." The second category (RFP Nos. 6-8) requests the ISO and QS9002 or similar certificates and "related documentation" received by any of Whitesell's manufacturing facilities and all third-party sub-suppliers for Parts in Suit for the period 2001-2013. Defendants also request "all written policies, procedures and quality manuals reviewed and/or approved in connection with the ISO and QS900 certificates." The Court will refer to this category as "Quality Certifications."

Damages Testimony

Defendants contend that Damages Testimony from other cases is highly relevant to this case. Defendants first point out that the Whirlpool case is very similar. In that case, Whitesell sought damages against Whirlpool, one of Defendants' major competitors, related to Whitesell's supply of similar fasteners to Whirlpool during a similar damages period. In fact, Whitesell made similar allegations concerning Whirlpool's intent to breach their supply agreement. Defendants have obtained trial transcripts in the Whirlpool case which contain statements related to Whitesell's production capabilities and profit margins on its fasteners as well as in the fastener industry in general. Defendants argue that the requested additional documents are necessary to test the assertions in this case respecting production capability and product costs.3

In response, Whitesell asserts that Defendants' requests are "clearly irrelevant" and have "no bearing" on the issues in this case. The Court, however, does not reach this same conclusion. In fact, Defendants may be able to show that Damages Testimony in the Whirlpool case directly bears upon the issues in this case. For instance, the Court is swayed by Defendants' contention that if Whitesell, through its experts or otherwise, apportions its overhead and expense costs across all of its clients, then testimony about apportionment of those same or shared costs to Whirlpool is relevant to any apportionment in this case during the same time period. Nevertheless, Defendants can only speculate, no matter how reasoned and despite the representations of counsel at other hearings, as to what Whitesell's experts will do in this case. As yet, there are no expert reports; thus, it remains to be seen how the experts will calculate the profit margins in this case, among other things, and upon what evidence they will rely.

In short, Defendants' request for Damages Testimony is premature. Upon further development of the record through fact depositions and expert witness discovery, Defendants may be able to establish the relevance of the Whirlpool case materials to the issues of product capability and profit margins. Until that time, and without prejudice to Defendants to re-urge the matter, Whitesell's objections to the request for Damages Testimony are sustained. This ruling does not preclude Defendants from inquiring of fact witnesses at deposition about their testimony or involvement in the Whirlpool case.

Quality Certifications

Defendants argue that the Quality Certifications are relevant to their defense that their failure to transition certain parts (particularly the Brunner parts) was largely due to Whitesell's inability to produce qualified parts, i.e., parts that met the qualification standards. In response, Whitesell agreed to produce its Quality Certifications for its manufacturing facilities from 2001 to 2013, but not the "related documentation" or the policies, procedures and quality manuals reviewed and/or approved in connection with Quality Certifications, on the basis that the requests are overbroad and irrelevant to any claim or defense in the case.4

In the Supply Agreement between the parties, Whitesell makes certain quality commitments. As those commitments relate to the Quality Certifications, Whitesell commits

(Supply Agreement, ¶ 12.3 (emphasis added).) By its terms then, Whitesell's commitment to Defendants with respect to the Quality Certifications is met if Whitesell maintained its Quality Certifications in good standing. Stated another way, the only relevant issue created by the Supply Agreement is whether Whitesell maintained its Quality Certifications.

Defendants contend that the supporting documentation and information underlying the Quality Certifications will inform the inquiry into whether Whitesell was capable of producing qualified parts. However, the Quality Certifications are not issued on a part-by-part basis; they do not pertain to any one part or even category of parts. Thus, they do not signify that a manufacturing facility is or is not capable of producing a qualified part. Rather, the Quality Certifications are issued to a facility upon review of that facility's overarching quality management system. The Quality Certifications ensure efficient, consistent, and effective quality management and control; they do not ensure that a facility can or will meet a particular part's design and qualification standards. The Court agrees with Whitesell that the question of whether it was capable of producing qualified parts instead involves the Production Part Approval Process or PPAP, which ensures that a component part supplier can design and produce an individual part according to the quality requirements for the part. In short, Defendants have failed to establish that the process by which Whitesell obtained the Quality Certifications is relevant to their claims involving the quality of individual parts.

Upon the foregoing, Whitesell's objections to RFP Nos. 6-8 are sustained except that Whitesell shall produce (in response to Request for Production Nos. 6 and 7) all ISO and/or QS9000 or similar certifications for each of its manufacturing facilities, both domestic and international, that supplied Parts in Suit to Defendants for the period of 2001 to 2013.

Conclusion

Upon the foregoing, Whitesell's objections to Defendants' Third Requests for Production are hereby SUSTAINED IN PART as more particularly delineated in this Order.

ORDER ENTERED.

Exhibit A

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA AUGUSTA DIVISION

WHITESELL CORPORATION'S OBJECTIONS TO DEFENDANTS' THIRD REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS

Plaintiff, WHITESELL CORPORATION ("Whitesell"), through its counsel, and pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 and 34, hereby serves its Objections to the Defendants' Third1 Request for Production of Documents served by Defendants, ELECTROLUX HOME PRODUCTS, INC. ("EHP") and HUSQVARNA HOME PRODUCTS, INC. ("HOPI") (collectively, "Defendants").

REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION

1. Please produce any and all deposition transcripts, including videotaped copies of all depositions, and related exhibits of Whitesell current and former employees, including corporate designees testifying pursuant to Rule 30(b)(6), in cases against customers or suppliers in which Whitesell sought damages since 2001, including but not limited to, Whitesell Corporation v. Whirlpool Corporation, No. 1:05-cv-00679 (W.D. Mich. 2005).

2. Please produce any and all declarations submitted by Whitesell current and former employees in cases against customers or suppliers in which Whitesell sought damages since 2001, including but not limited to, Whitesell Corporation v. Whirlpool Corporation, No. 1:05-cv-00679 (W.D.Mich. 2005).

3. Please produce any and all deposition transcripts, including videotaped copies of all depositions, and related exhibits of experts retained by Whitesell in cases against customers or suppliers in which Whitesell sought damages since 2001, including but not limited to, Whitesell Corporation v. Whirlpool Corporation, No. 1:05-cv-00679 (W.D.Mich. 2005).

4. Please produce any and all trial exhibits from Whitesell Corporation v. Whirlpool Corporation, No. 1:05-cv-00679 (W.D.Mich. 2005).

5. Please produce any and all documents that have been obtained from third parties related to this litigation.

6. Please produce a copy of all International Organization for Standardization ("ISO") certificates and related documentation received by any of Whitesell's manufacturing plants and/or facilities, both domestic and international, as well as all third party sub-suppliers used by Whitesell to supply Parts in Suit to Defendants for the period 2001-2013, including but not limited to 9002 and 9001 certifications. This request includes documents indicating the name of the registrar(s) issuing the certificate(s), the identity of the plant and/or facility to which the certificate(s) relates, the effective dates of each such certification, all recertification audits that the plant and/or facility underwent and the result of such recertification audits(s).

7. Please produce a copy of all QS900 or similar certifications and related documentation received by the Whitesell Corporation, as well as all third party sub-suppliers used by Whitesell to supply Parts in Suit to Defendants for the period 2001-2013. This request includes documents indicating the name of the registrar(s) issuing the certificate(s), the identity of the plant and/or facility to which the certificate(s) relates, the effective dates of each such certification, all recertification audits that the Company underwent and the result of such recertification audits(s).

8. Please produce copies of all written policies, procedures and quality manuals reviewed and/or approved in connection with the ISO and QS900 certificates described in the two preceding requests for production.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on June 6, 2016, a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been furnished via electronic mail on the parties identified in the Service List below.

SERVICE LIST