McRae et al v. Minor et al

Filing 120

ORDER granting 82 Motion to Stay Proceedings, and finding moot 76 Motion to File Answer and Counterclaim Under Seal. Signed by Magistrate Judge F. Keith Ball on 3/23/18 (RBM)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
NORTHERN DIVISION
OLIVER E. DIAZ, JR., ET AL.

PLAINTIFFS

VS.

CIVIL ACTION NO.: 3:16-cv-757-DPJ-FKB

PAUL S. MINOR, ET AL.

DEFENDANTS
ORDER STAYING CASE

Before the Court are two motions: Defendants’ Motion to Stay Proceedings [82] and
Defendants’ Motion to File Answer and Counterclaim Under Seal [76]. For the reasons described
herein, the Court finds that motion [82] should be granted, and motion [76] is, therefore, moot.
Procedural History
This case concerns an attorneys’ fees dispute. Plaintiffs, Oliver Diaz, Jr. and the Oliver
Diaz Law Firm (“Diaz”), claim that Defendants owe them attorney’s fees and expenses for legal
services rendered in the matter of Paul S. Minor and Estate of Sylvia F. Minor vs. United Services
Automobile Association, Cause No. 2008-00204, pending before the Circuit Court of Jackson
1

County, Mississippi (“the USAA case”). The state court litigation resulted in a verdict in favor of
2

Paul Minor and the Estate of Sylvia Minor (“the Minors”). However, the Mississippi Court of
Appeals has remanded the case for additional proceedings. See Estate of Minor v. United Servs.
Auto. Ass'n, No. 2014-CA-00372-COA, 2017 WL 2781975 at *11-12 (Miss. Ct. App. June 27,
2017), reh'g denied (Mar. 6, 2018). The Minors have since retained new counsel in the USAA

1 Two of the original plaintiffs, Chuck McRae and the McRae Law Firm, PLLC, have resolved their claims

and agreed to dismiss them from this case. [118]. Plaintiffs Oliver Diaz, Jr. and Oliver Diaz Law Firm, PLLC
remain.
2 Paul S. Minor and the Estate of Sylvia F. Minor are the plaintiffs in the USAA case. In addition to the
them, Diaz has also filed suit against Paul Stephen Minor and Kathryn Minor, in both their representative and
individual capacities as executors of the Estate of Sylvia Minor. The Court uses the term, “Defendants,” to refer to
all four of the Minor defendants in the instant case. The Court refers to the plaintiffs in the USAA litigation as “the
Minors.”

case, but Diaz claims he is still owed attorney’s fees and expenses for his previous representation
of the Minors in the USAA case.
On September 13, 2017, Diaz filed his Second Amended Complaint. [74]. On September
27, 2017, Defendants filed motion [76], requesting permission to file their answer and
counterclaim under seal. Defendants claim that some assertions in their answer and counterclaims
“may affect the parties’ respective positions in the ongoing USAA case,” and “[t]o avoid any such
unintended effects,” Defendants request that they be allowed to file their answer and counterclaim
under seal. [76] at 2. After Plaintiffs objected to the motion to seal, Defendants moved to stay the
cause until the USAA case has concluded. [82]. Defendants ask the Court to grant the motion to
seal [76] only if the Court denies the motion to stay [82]. See [83] at 1.
On December 12, 2017, the Court stayed Defendant’s duty to file an answer to Diaz’s
Second Amended Complaint pending its ruling on these motions. On December 22, 2017, the
Court ordered Defendants to file a non-confidential memorandum in support of the motion to seal
as required by L.U.Civ.R. 79. [90]. The Court also ordered Defendants to submit a confidential
memorandum and a copy of the proposed answer and counterclaim directly to chambers, copying
opposing counsel on both. Id. Defendants submitted the required documents to the Court on
January 9, 2018.
Legal Standard
When determining whether to seal a portion of a judicial record, a court must balance the
public’s right to access filings against interests which favor nondisclosure. Securities and
Exchange Commission v. Van Waeyenberghe, 990 F.2d 845, 848 (5th Cir. 1993). The court must
examine “relevant facts and circumstances of the particular case.” Nixon v. Warner
Communications, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 599 (1978). “Despite the public's general right to inspect and
copy public record, a court may order documents sealed where, on balance, the party's interest in

2

having them sealed outweighs the public's interest in open access to judicial records.” DISH
Network, LLC v. WLAJ-TV, LLC, No. CV 16-0869, 2017 WL 1333057, at *2 (W.D. La. Apr. 3,
2017).
"[T]he power to stay proceedings is incidental to the power inherent in every court to
control the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for
counsel, and for litigants." Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936). “Generally, the power
to stay a pending matter derives from a trial court's wide discretion to control the course of
litigation.” United States v. $9,041,598.68, 163 F.3d 238, 251 (5th Cir. 1998). “When deciding
‘whether a stay should be granted, the Court is guided by the factors of judicial economy and
convenience for the Court, for counsel, and for the parties.’” Ha Thi Le v. Lease Fin. Grp., LLC,
Civ. Action No. CV 16-14867, 2017 WL 2915488, at *6 (E.D. La. May 9, 2017), reconsideration
denied, Civ. Action No. CV 16-14867, 2017 WL 2911140 (E.D. La. July 7, 2017)(quoting United
States v. FEDCON Joint Venture, Civ. Action No. 16-13022, 2017 WL 897852, at *1 (E.D. La.
Mar. 7, 2017)).
Analysis
The Court has reviewed Defendants’ proposed answer and counterclaim in camera. The
Court has also reviewed Defendants’ memoranda, which assert that the answer and counterclaim
contain attorney-client privileged and work product information related to the ongoing USAA
case.
The Court finds that Defendants’ concern that the proposed answer and counterclaim may
potentially reveal attorney-client privileged and work product information to the public (and
therefore the opposing party in the USAA case) is well-founded. Diaz, the Minors’ former attorney
and Plaintiff herein, filed this suit against his former clients prior to the case in which he
represented them concluding. This puts Defendants in a difficult position; they are forced to defend

3

against their former attorney, while at the same time trying not to reveal any information publicly
that could damage their ongoing state court lawsuit. In light of these circumstances, Defendants’
request to file their answer and counterclaim under seal is reasonable, as is their request for a stay.
The risk of prejudice to the Minors’ state court case significantly outweighs any prejudice
to Diaz that would result from a stay. Defendants have shown a pressing need for the stay to protect
attorney-client privileged and work product information from being disseminated to the opposing
party in the USAA litigation. Although Diaz claims prejudice by delay, it is simply too problematic
to attempt to proceed with this case without revealing Defendants’ privileged and confidential
information related to a case that they are still litigating in state court. The Minors did not initiate
this case, and the Court can find no reason why they should be forced to publicly divulge attorneyclient privileged and work product information in order to defend themselves in this matter when
a stay is available. Accordingly, this case should be stayed, pending conclusion of the USAA case.
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the Court ORDERS as follows:
1.

Defendants’ motion to stay [82] is granted, and this action is stayed pending final

disposition of Paul S. Minor and Estate of Sylvia F. Minor vs. United Services Automobile
Association, Cause No. 2008-00204, pending before the Circuit Court of Jackson County,
Mississippi;
2.

Defendants’ motion to file their answer and counterclaim under seal [76] is found

to be moot; and
3.

The parties shall promptly inform the Court of any final resolution of the USAA

case, whether upon motion, settlement, or trial, and shall further file a joint notice informing the
Court of the status of the USAA case on September 3, 2018, and every six months thereafter until
such time as the stay is lifted in this action.

4

SO ORDERED, on this the 23rd day of March, 2018.

/s/ F. Keith Ball
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

5