Cooper v. Meritor, Inc., 4:16-cv-52-DMB-JMV (2018)
Court: District Court, N.D. Mississippi
Number: infdco20180221j38
Visitors: 7
Filed: Feb. 20, 2018
Latest Update: Feb. 20, 2018
Summary: ORDER JANE M. VIRDEN , Magistrate Judge . 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 di
Summary: ORDER JANE M. VIRDEN , Magistrate Judge . 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 dis..
More
ORDER
JANE M. VIRDEN, Magistrate Judge.
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.
Source: Leagle
