Klug v. Watts Regulator Company, et al

Filing 116

ORDER granting (112) SEALED MOTION in case 8:15-cv-00061-JFB-FG3; granting (111) SEALED MOTION in case 8:16-cv-00200-JFB-FG3. Ordered by Senior Judge Joseph F. Bataillon. (ADB) Modified on 6/30/2016 to unseal(ADB, )

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA CURTIS KLUG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated; LAWRENCE NOVER, AND NELS ROE, 8:15CV61 Plaintiffs, ORDER vs. WATTS REGULATOR COMPANY, Defendant. DURWIN SHARP, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated; JOSEPH PONZO, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated; KATHRYN MEYERS, AND on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated; and JOSHUA WHIPP, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated; 8:16CV200 ORDER Plaintiffs, vs. WATTS REGULATOR CO., Defendant. This matter is before the Court on the defendant’s motion to strike confidential declaration of Thomas J. Hackney, Filing No. 112 in 8:15cv61 and Filing No. 111 in 8:16cv200. No response or objection has been filed. The Court reviewed the motion and argument of the defendants. The specified paragraphs objected to by the defendants, paragraphs 4 and 5, regard certain settlement agreements. Defendants object on the grounds of relevance and lack of foundation. After reviewing the paragraphs, the Court finds the argument stated by the defendants is persuasive. The Court sees no relevance in the settlement of these various cases. Therefore, the Court will grant the motion and strike paragraphs 4 and 5. THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that: 1. Watts Regulator Company’s motion to strike, Filing No. 112 in 8:15cv61 and Filing No. 111 in 8:16cv200, is granted. 2. Paragraphs 4 and 5 of the Thomas J. Hackney declaration, Filing No. 108 in 8:15cv61 and Filing No. 106 in 8:16cv200, are stricken. Dated this 30th day of June, 2016 BY THE COURT: s/ Joseph F. Bataillon Senior United States District Judge 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?