IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION - CINCINNATI TAMMY EPPERT, : Case No. 1:23-cev-712 Plaintiff, Judge Matthew W. McFarland

v : SANOFI U.S. SERVICES, INC., et. al, Defendants.

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO STAY (Doc. 14) □ SE This matter is before the Court on Defendants’ unopposed Motion to Stay (Doc. 14). The parties seek to stay these proceedings to finalize a Master Settlement Agreement that would include Plaintiff and resolve the instant case. (Id. at Pg. ID 372.) “The District Court has broad discretion to stay proceedings as an incident to its

power to control its own docket.” Clinton v. Jones,

(1997). In determining whether to grant a stay, “district courts often consider the following factors: the need for

a stay, the balance of potential hardship to the parties and the public, and the promotion of judicial economy.” Ferrell v. Wyeth-Ayerst Labs., Inc., No. 1:01-CV-447,

, at *1 (S.D. Ohio Oct. 21, 2005) (citation omitted). Upon consideration of the motion and applicable law, a stay is appropriate. A stay in this case will allow the parties to finalize their Settlement Agreement, thus preventing unnecessary litigation and promoting judicial economy. Accordingly, Defendants’ unopposed Motion to Stay (Doc. 14) is GRANTED and this case is STAYED in its

entirety. The Parties are additionally ORDERED to file a joint status report in six months outlining to progress of the Master Settlement Agreement. IT IS SO ORDERED.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO Wels By: JUDGE MATTHEW W. McFARLAND