Okay. Pacer is soon-to-be classed as a dead horse, as far as I'm concerned. I'll just reiterate that the docket report on even long-running cases is just a few pages. Nothing gets downloaded off that report unless it is selected for download. I have not studied the Pacer system; I've used it pretty easily, and I don't have reason to believe its primary purpose was to make all federal court filings available online for free. In any event, no one with even rudimentary knowledge of federal courts in the U.S. would search Pacer for cases in general involving Boeing - and anyone who did have basic knowledge would know that there is a cost associated with treating it like it's Google or some other free-to-search platform.
As to this ruling, I first saw news reports of it in the online edition of a major newspaper. (Since the relevance of your inquiry eludes me, I'll add that looking for the case name or number, I read several more news outlet reports the same morning, all with mostly the same content and a few brief slightyly different items.)
As for damages. I'm going to agree to disagree. I'll mostly leave aside the assertion that some as yet unspecified damages award, after all appeals have been exhausted, would add such a burden that the company would become insolvent. I don't think that is valid but I'm not a securities analyst or a financial analyst and so I'm not arguing that point in substance here, other than to say I don't think your asserting it makes it true. More broadly, and not only because I'm an attorney, I believe in the U.S. civil justice system, even with its many, and serious, flaws. And in that system, it is for the jury to determine damages, subject to court and appellate review. Thus, I don't have a number to propose - that's for plaintiffs and their counsel to propose and advocate.
Not least, as for your most general point, that the plaintiffs in this lawsuit do not deserve financial compensation based on a variety of contentions you assert, well, your opinion is your opinion. I'm imagining something like a joint "struggle session" - U.S. style and not exactly like the Red Guards - in which you berate the plaintiffs for their wrongheadedness of pursuing financial damages in tort, and I (or others posting here) berate Boeing management and directors for their deceit, malfeasance, and failure to uphold what should have been a sacred trust of engineering excellence and high fidelity to aviation safety. In other words, just as my views are completely unconvincing (or worse) to you, you have not convinced me that the doors to the courthouse in ordinary civil litigation should be closed to these plaintiffs, not for any of the various reasons you've argued, or some of those reasons, or all of those reasons.