I. Background[1]
A. Factual Background
- 1. ICC and Model Building Codes
This is a case about model building codes. Model codes are a type of privately-developed standard that provide rules, conditions, and guidelines for various products and processes, and which also delineate various technical specifications, measurements, and testing methods that apply to those products and processes. Federal, state, and local governments frequently incorporate such standards
- ↑ Except as otherwise noted, the following background derives from the undisputed facts as set forth by the parties in their Local Rule 56.1 Statements of Undisputed Material Facts and responses thereto. (See “ICC SUMF,” Dkt. Nos. 84-2, 100-1; “Defs. SUMF,” Dkt. No. 85-2; “ICC Supp. SUMF,” Dkt. No. 90-1; “ICC SDF,” Dkt. No. 90-29; “Defs. Resp.,” Dkt. No. 92-1; “Defs. Supp. Resp.,” Dkt. No. 96-1.) The Court has also considered the full record submitted by the parties, including the following frequently-cited declarations and exhibits: the Declaration of Mark Johnson in support of ICC’s Motion, Dkt. No. 84-3 (“Johnson Decl.”); the Declaration of Jane Wise in support of ICC’s Motion, Dkt. No. 84-18 (“Wise Decl.”); Wise Decl. Ex. 65 (“Jarosz Report”); the Declaration of Joseph C. Gratz in support of Defendants’ Motion, Dkt. No. 85-3 (“Gratz Decl.”); the Declaration of Garrett Reynolds in support of Defendants’ Motion, Dkt. No. 85-20 (“G. Reynolds Decl.”); the Declaration of Scott Reynolds in support of Defendants’ Motion, Dkt. No. 85-23 (“S. Reynolds Decl.”); the Declaration of Jane Wise in opposition to Defendants’ Motion, Dkt. No. 90-5 (“Wise Opp. Decl.”); the Affidavit Declaration of Joseph C. Gratz in Opposition to ICC’s Motion, Dkt. No. 92-2 (“Gratz Opp. Decl.”); the Affidavit Declaration of Douglas Kidder, Dkt. No. 92-30 (“Kidder Decl.”), & Ex. A (“Kidder Report”); the Affidavit Declaration of Garrett Reynolds in Opposition to ICC’s Motion, Dkt. No. 92-33 (“G. Reynolds Opp. Decl.”); the Affidavit Declaration of Scott Reynolds in Opposition to ICC’s Motion, Dkt. No. 92-35 (“S. Reynolds Opp. Decl.”); and the Affidavit Declaration of Garrett Reynolds in support of Defendants’ Reply, Dkt. No. 96-2 (“G. Reynolds Reply Decl.”). No further citations to the record will be made herein except as specifically cited. The Court construes any disputed facts discussed in this section and the justifiable inferences arising therefrom in the light most favorable to the non-movant for each motion, as required under the standard set forth in Section II.A. below.
2
