Operating Engineers Local 324, et al v Ajax Paving Industries Inc, et al

Filing 35

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S EMERGENCY MOTION TO ATTEND IN-CAMERA REVIEW. Signed by District Judge Avern Cohn. (MVer)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

TRUSTEES OF THE OPERATING ENGINEERS’
LOCAL 324 PENSION FUND, OPERATING
ENGINEERS’ LOCAL 324 HEALTH CARE PLAN,
OPERATING ENGINEERS’ LOCAL 324 VACATION
& HOLIDAY FUND, OPERATING ENGINEERS’ LOCAL
324 RETIREE BENEFIT FUND, OPERATING ENGINEERS’
LOCAL 324 APPRENTICESHIP FUND and OPERATING
ENGINEERS’ LOCAL 324 DEFINED CONTRIBUTION
PLAN, Trust Funds Established and Administered
Pursuant to Federal Law,
Plaintiffs,

Case No. 16-14161

v.
AJAX PAVING INDUSTRIES, INC., a Michigan
Corporation, MARK K. JOHNSTON,
JAMES A. JACOB, JAMES M. FRIEL,
DENISE JACOB and STEVEN E. JACOB, individually,

HON. AVERN COHN

Defendants.
______________________________________________/
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ EMERGENCY MOTION TO ATTEND IN-CAMERA
REVIEW (Doc. 33)
I.
This is an ERISA action to collect fringe benefits alleged to be owed to plaintiff
funds. Before the Court is plaintiffs’ Emergency Motion to Attend In-Camera Review.
(Doc. 34). For the reasons that follow, the motion is DENIED.
II.
The purpose of the in-camera review hearing is for the Court to inquire into the
source for an allegation contained in defendants’ original Motion for More Definite

Statement (Doc. 13).1 The allegation pertains to a vote by the trustees to seek an audit
of defendants’ books and records and relates to the integrity of the voting process.
Plaintiffs ask the court to compel disclosure of the source for the allegation. Defendants
maintain that the allegation is not relevant to any issue in the case.
At a phone conference with the parties on September 6, 2017, the Court directed
that defendants produce the source witness for questioning in camera. The Court
scheduled the matter for hearing and directing defendants’ counsel and the source
witness to be present. Plaintiffs, under the mistaken impression that they could be
present during the questioning, filed the instant motion seeking to attend the in camera
hearing.
The purpose of an in camera review is for the Court to privately review material
to determine whether it may be disclosed to a party or the public. Here, if the Court
determines that the information is arguably relevant and may be disclosed, it will permit
plaintiffs to review the transcript and take other appropriate steps. Until such time,
plaintiffs are not entitled to any further information regarding the allegation.
SO ORDERED.

S/Avern Cohn
AVERN COHN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Dated: September 22, 2017
Detroit, Michigan
1

Defendants later amended the motion, removing the allegation at issue. (Doc.
14). Thus, although the allegation is not technically part of the record, plaintiffs have
insisted on pursuing the source.
2