Cooper et al v. Meritor, Inc. et al

Filing 492

ORDER granting (487) Motion to stay application of February 7, 2018 Order in case 4:16-cv-00052-DMB-JMV; granting (410) Motion to stay application of February 7, 2018 Order in case 4:16-cv-00053-DMB-JMV; granting (412) Motion to stay applicatio n of February 7, 2018 Order in case 4:16-cv-00054-DMB-JMV; granting (412) Motion to stay application of February 7, 2018 Order in case 4:16-cv-00055-DMB-JMV; granting (410) Motion to stay application of February 7, 2018 Order in case 4:16-cv-00056-DMB-JMV. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jane M. Virden on 2/20/18. Associated Cases: 4:16-cv-00052-DMB-JMV, 4:16-cv-00053-DMB-JMV, 4:16-cv-00054-DMB-JMV, 4:16-cv-00055-DMB-JMV, 4:16-cv-00056-DMB-JMV (ncb)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
GREENVILLE DIVISION
BRENDA J. COOPER, ET AL.
versus
MERITOR, INC., ET AL.

PLAINTIFFS
Civil Action No. 4:16-cv-52-DMB-JMV
DEFENDANTS
- Consolidated With –

JOE E. SLEDGE, ET AL.
versus
MERITOR, INC., ET AL.

PLAINTIFFS
Civil Action No. 4:16-cv-53-DMB- JMV
DEFENDANTS

- and KATHERINE LONGSTREET COOKE, ET AL.
PLAINTIFFS
versus
Civil Action No. 4:16-cv-54-DMB-JMV
MERITOR, INC., ET AL.
DEFENDANTS
SRA INVESTMENTS, LLC, ET AL.
versus
MERITOR, INC., ET AL.

- and PLAINTIFFS
Civil Action No. 4:16-cv-55-DMB-JMV
DEFENDANTS

FELICIA WILLIS, ET AL.
versus
MERITOR, INC., ET AL.

- and PLAINTIFFS
Civil Action No. 4:16-cv-56-DMB-JMV
DEFENDANTS

ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Defendants Meritor, Inc.; The Boeing Company; and
Rockwell Automation, Inc.’s motion to stay that part of the undersigned’s February 7, 2018 Order
that compelled full disclosure of inadvertently-produced “claw-back” documents. The undersigned
has considered the motion, the response, the reply, and the applicable law and is of the opinion that
consideration of the relevant factors weighs in favor of staying full disclosure of the documents
(though it should be noted that in this instance the subject documents have previously been viewed by
Plaintiffs’ counsel as a consequence of the documents’ inadvertent production to Plaintiff’s counsel).
Plaintiffs’ counsel are directed to sequester–in accordance with FED.R.CIV.P. 26(b)(5)(B)–the subject

documents pending entry of a decision by the district judge on any appeal of the February 7 Order or
further order of the court, whichever is filed earlier.
SO ORDERED this 20th day of February, 2018.

/s/ Jane M. Virden
U. S. Magistrate Judge

2