Cooper et al v. Meritor, Inc. et al

Filing 517

ORDER granting (513) Motion to Stay in case 4:16-cv-00052-DMB-JMV; granting (436) Motion to Stay in case 4:16-cv-00053-DMB-JMV; granting (438) Motion to Stay in case 4:16-cv-00054-DMB-JMV; granting (438) Motion to Stay in case 4:16-cv-00055-DMB-J MV; granting (436) Motion to Stay in case 4:16-cv-00056-DMB-JMV. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jane M. Virden on 3/12/18. 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 Defendant Meritor, Inc.’s motion to stay compliance with
the undersigned’s March 8, 2018 Order that compelled full disclosure of the “T&M documents.” The
undersigned has considered the motion, the response, and the applicable law and is of the opinion that
consideration of the relevant factors weighs in favor of staying disclosure of the documents. More
particularly, though Defendant has not demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits, the harm
to be suffered by Defendant, should the undersigned’s March 8 Order be overturned, is not harm
which could be remedied or abridged after the fact of disclosure. On the other hand, if the March 8
Order is upheld, Plaintiffs will still have an opportunity—at trial—to examine witnesses with the
subject documents. But, should the documents reveal something that necessitates further exploration

through discovery, Plaintiffs have the right to demonstrate the same by filing a motion for a
continuance of the current trial setting. Ultimately, the public’s interest in the documents will, in
either case, likewise be protected.
Accordingly, compliance with the March 8 Order is STAYED pending a determination by the
district judge of the merit of said order or further order of the Court, whichever is earlier.
SO ORDERED this 12th day of March, 2018.

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

2