# Jones v. Coca-Cola Consolidated, Inc.

> District Court, W.D. North Carolina · September 3, 2021

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10257414

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, W.D. North Carolina
- **Decided:** September 3, 2021
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10257414

## Opinion text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CHARLOTTE DIVISION
NO. 3:20-CV-00654-FDW-DSC
SARA J. GAST
CHEYENNE JONES,

Plaintiffs,

v. ORDER

BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF COCA-
COLA CONSOLIDATED, INC.
CORPORATE BENEFITS
COMMITTEE OF COCA-COLA
CONSOLIDATED, INC.
COCA-COLA CONSOLIDATED,
INC.
DOES,

Defendants.

THIS MATTER is before the Court upon the filing of Defendants’ Written Objections to
the Magistrate Judge’s Order sustaining Plaintiffs’ objections to discovery requests entered on
August 30, 2021. (Doc. No. 51). Defendants object to the Magistrate Judge’s Order pursuant to
Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a), which provides that district judges “must consider timely objections and
modify or set aside any part of the order that is clearly erroneous or is contrary to law.” “A finding
is ‘clearly erroneous’ when although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the
entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.”
United States v. U.S. Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364, 395 (1948).
Defendants object to the Magistrate Judge’s Order refusing to compel production of
“documents and communications related to investments outside the Plan” and “solicitation
communications from attorneys related to this litigation. (Doc. No. 51, pp. 4, 6) The Magistrate
Judge sustained Plaintiffs’ objections after reviewing one-page summaries submitted by the parties
in support of their respective positions. See (Doc. No. 51, p. 3).
The Court has reviewed the summaries submitted by the parties, Defendants’ objections,
and applicable law. After such review, the Court has not come to the definite and firm conviction
that a mistake has been committed. The Magistrate Judge’s Order of August 30, 2021 is not clearly
erroneous or contrary to law, and the Court DENIES Defendants’ Objections.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Signed: September 2, 2021

Frank D. Whitney é & yf
United States District Judge * ey

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10257414. Public record. Not legal advice.