YOUNGSTOWN, Ohio (WKBN) — Attorneys for two men from New Galilee, Pa., and Norfolk Southern came to an agreement on inspecting railroad cars at the site of a chemical leak in East Palestine.

The agreement was spelled out in court papers in the U.S. Northern District Court of Ohio before U.S. Judge Benita Y. Pearson.

Andrew Erdos and David Anderson, both of New Galilee, and a company, Anderson Valley View MHP LLC, filed one of the first class action lawsuits following the Feb. 3, derailment of a train in East Palestine that was carrying hazardous chemicals.

A few days after the derailment, authorities decided to burn off the chemicals rather than remove them from the trains, because they were afraid they would explode if efforts were made to remove them.

Anderson and Erdos filed their suit Feb. 9, and of the about dozen lawsuits filed in federal court over the derailment thus far, their case has generated the most activity.

Just this week alone, four other class action lawsuits were filed against Norfolk Southern over the derailment.

The pair said they live within five miles of the derailment and Anderson listed the company’s address as his own. They claim they are owed damages by Norfolk Southern because of the environmental and potential medical issues caused by the derailment.

Attorneys for the pair filed a motion Feb. 24 asking for a temporary restraining order barring Norfolk Southern from moving the trains at the site until their own experts could inspect them.

Judge Pearson held two hearings on the matter Monday, according to court records.

When they filed their motion for the injunction, attorneys for Anderson and Erdos said they did so because Norfolk Southern was planning to remove the cars Wednesday from the derailment site after being given the go-ahead by the National Transportation Safety Board.

By removing the cars before the plaintiffs had a chance to examine them, the railroad would “intentionally destroy relevant evidence at the site,” the motion for the injunction said.

At the time the injunction was filed, the attorneys had not had any access to the site, they wrote. They wrote they have retained several experts, including a derailment reconstructionist and a metallurgical engineer.

A restraining order and injunction were necessary to preserve the evidence at the site, attorneys for Anderson and Erdos wrote.

In court records, the notes said attorneys for both sides had agreed on a plan to keep the rail cars available for inspection, but the notes did not go into details on how that is being accomplished.

Although the rail car dispute was resolved, the notes indicated another dispute was brewing among both sides about the collection of soil and water samples at the site. However, that dispute appeared after a Wednesday hearing, where a notice was written that the motion for the restraining order and preliminary injunction had been resolved by both parties.

Again, no details were available through online court records.

Judge Pearson also ordered that both sides submit a plan to her by March 15 to allow for a “putative class action,” or how to decide what other parties can be part of the class action and have their cases heard also.