Opinion
C.A. No. 0:11-cv-01800-JFA
02-07-2013
Odell Parker; Ruth Parker; Larry Southern; Roy Southern; Yvonne Harris; and Barbara Patterson, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated in the State of South Carolina, Plaintiffs, v. Asbestos Processing, LLC; Richard H. Bishoff, PC; Richard H. Bishoff; and John Deakle, Defendants.
ORDER
As announced by this court at the hearing on February 6, 2013, for good cause shown, this court hereby denies Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. (ECF No. 61). Additionally, this court affirms its earlier oral ruling sealing any reference to the income of the Defendants. As such, this court denies Plaintiffs' Motion to Unseal (ECF No. 90) and grants Defendants' motions related to sealing various documents and transcripts (ECF Nos. 96, 98, 99).
Defendants are directed to file unredacted copies of their Reply (ECF No. 95) and their Response in Opposition (ECF No. 97) using the event code Sealed Document. The parties should also file any exhibits that were submitted for in camera review in the same manner. The parties are further directed to submit a proposed scheduling order to this court on or before February 13, 2013.
IT IS SO ORDERED. February 7, 2013
Columbia, South Carolina
Joseph F. Anderson, Jr.
United States District Judge