Bixby et al v. KBR, Inc. et al, No. 3:2009cv00632 - Document 647 (D. Or. 2012)

Court Description: OPINION & ORDER (Corrected): Plaintiffs' Oral Motion for Relief from Court-Imposed Restrictions on the Parties' Right to Speak Regarding the Parties' Dispute is Granted as discussed in this Opinion and Order. Signed on 12/19/12 by Magistrate Judge Paul Papak. (Corrected to include PDF attachment of Opinion & Order.) (gm)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON ROCKY BIXBY, LAWRENCE ROBERTA, SCOTT ASHBY, CHARLES ELLIS, MATTHEW HADLEY, JESUS BRUNO, COLT CAMPREDON, STEPHEN FOSTER, BYRON GREER, KELLY HAFER, DENNIS JEWELL, STEPHEN MUELLER, VITO PACHECO, JOI-IN RYDQUIST, KEVIN STANGER, RONALD BJERKLUND, ADANROLANDO GARCIA, BRIAN HEDIN, CHARLES SEAMON, RANDY KEIPER, MATT KUHNEL, DENNIS ROSGEN, AARON ST. CLAIR, KEVIN WILSON, JASON BLAIN, JAMES BORJA, DEVON FIELDS, LESLIE ING, RICHARD LAWRENCE, JAY LOUISIANA, JAMES McGOWAt"\1, DONALD YEARGIN, and JASON ARNOLD, Plaintiffs, 3 :09-CV -632-PK v. OPINION AND ORDER KBR, INC., KELLOGG, BROWN & ROOT SERVICE, INC., KBR TECHNICAL SERVICES, INC., OVERSEAS ADMINISTRATION SERVICES, LTD., and SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERt'!ATIONAL, INC., Defendants. · PAP AK, Magistrate Judge: Before the comi is plaintiffs' infom1al, oral motion (#616) for relieffrom certain courtimposed pretrial restrictions on the right of the parties and their counsel to speak regarding issues Page 1 - OPINION AND ORDER material to the pmiies' dispute. I have considered the motion, oral argument on behalf of the parties, and all of the pleadings on file. For the reasons set fotih below, plaintiffs' motion is granted as discussed below. ANALYSIS From October 9, 2012, through November 2, 2012, trial was held in this action on the claims of plaintiffs Arnold, Bixby, Bjerklund, Campredon, Ellis, Greer, Hadley, Hedin, Pacheco, Robetia, Seamon, and St. Clair. The claims of the remaining plaintiffs have not yet been tried. Prior to the trial of the first set of plaintiffs in this action, the court imposed a loosely structured set of restrictions on the parties' right to speak regarding their dispute, referred to informally by the parties as the comi's "gag order," calculated to prevent material information regarding the parties' dispute from polluting the pool of potential jurors who would hear plaintiffs' claims. At this time, no trial date has been set for the claims of any of the remaining plaintiffs, and the court does not contemplate setting any such trial date until after appeals, if any, from the judgment rendered at the close of the first trial have been resolved. Because no further trial date is currently on calendar, all court-imposed restrictions on the pmiies' right to speak regarding their dispute are lifted. The court will reconsider the need to impose such restrictions, either on the motion of any party or sua sponte, after a date has been set for further trial in this action. CONCLUSION For the reasons set f01ih above, plaintiffs' motion (#616) for relieffrom court-imposed Ill Ill Page 2 - OPINION AND ORDER restrictions on the right of the pmiies and their counsel to speak regarding the pmiies' dispute is granted as discussed above. Honorable Paul Papak · United States Magistrate Judge Page 3 - OPINION AND ORDER

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.