A. et al v. Doe Run Resources Corporation et al

Filing 1353

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiffs' Motions to File Under Seal 1336 1346 are GRANTED. Plaintiffs' unredacted Motion to Stay Discovery Pending Appeal (ECF 1337-1) and Reply Brief in Support (ECF 1347-1) are deemed filed. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiffs' Motion to Stay Discovery Pending Appeal is DENIED. Signed by District Judge Catherine D. Perry on 06/15/2023. (ANP)

Case: 4:11-cv-00044-CDP Doc. #: 1353 Filed: 06/15/23 Page: 1 of 2 PageID #: 58279

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
A.O.A., et al.
Plaintiffs,
v.
IRA L. RENNERT, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.:

4:11 CV 44 CDP

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on plaintiffs’ Motion to Stay Discovery Pending
Appeal (ECF 1337-1, 1338 (redacted)), and plaintiffs’ Motions to File Under Seal
(ECF 1336, 1346) wherein plaintiffs move to seal their motion to stay and their reply
brief in support. Defendants oppose the motions.
Having fully considered the issues raised by the motions to seal and the
respective positions of the parties, I conclude that plaintiffs have provided compelling
reasons to seal their motion to stay and their reply brief in support. It is appropriate
to seal matters that contain information regarding ongoing criminal investigations that
could damage reputations and careers on account of unindicted conduct. See In re
Search Warrant for Secretarial Area Outside Office of Gunn, 855 F.2d 569, 574 (8th
Cir. 1988); Certain Interested Individuals, John Does I-V, Who Are Emps. of
McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Pulitzer Pub. Co., 895 F.2d 460, 467 (8th Cir. 1990). I
will therefore exercise my discretion and grant plaintiffs’ Motions to File Under Seal

Case: 4:11-cv-00044-CDP Doc. #: 1353 Filed: 06/15/23 Page: 2 of 2 PageID #: 58280

for the reasons stated in their motions, and plaintiffs’ sealed Motion to Stay
Discovery Pending Appeal (ECF 1337-1) and sealed Reply in Support (ECF 1347-1)
shall be deemed filed.
Given that plaintiffs’ motion to stay is fully briefed, I have also fully
considered the parties’ respective positions on the issues raised in that motion.
Although plaintiffs seek to stay “all” discovery in this case, it appears that the only
matter in dispute is the production of notarized Plaintiff Profile Sheets. Plaintiffs’
obligation to produce the PPSs in accordance with earlier Orders has existed over a
period of years. The interlocutory appeal presently pending before the Eighth Circuit
does not change this existing obligation. I will deny the motion to stay.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiffs’ Motions to File Under Seal
[1336] [1346] are GRANTED. Plaintiffs’ unredacted Motion to Stay Discovery
Pending Appeal (ECF 1337-1) and Reply Brief in Support (ECF 1347-1) are deemed
filed.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiffs’ Motion to Stay Discovery
Pending Appeal is DENIED.

_________________________________
CATHERINE D. PERRY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated this 15th day of June, 2023.
-2-