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

Filing 1399

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendants Doe Run Resources Corporation and The Renco Group, Inc.'s Motion for Limited Relief from Protective Order 1390 is DENIED. In all other respects, this action remains STAYED pending disposition of the interlocutory appeal certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) and presently before the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. Signed by Sr. District Judge Catherine D. Perry on 12/07/2023. (ANR)

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
On November 17, 2023, defendants Doe Run Resources Corporation and
The Renco Group, Inc., moved for “limited relief” from a protective order entered
in this action by agreement of the parties in November 2017. Specifically,
defendants ask that I suspend provisions of the protective order so that they may
provide to Peruvian prosecutors certain protected documents and information they
received from plaintiffs during the course of discovery in this case, which
defendants aver are responsive to a Peruvian subpoena served on them on
November 7. Plaintiffs oppose defendants’ Motion for Limited Relief to which
defendants have replied. Upon careful consideration of the parties’ respective
positions, I will deny the motion.
I am aware of no Eighth Circuit authority addressing whether the sanctity of
a civil protective order should give way to an outside (and here, foreign) agency’s

request for information as part of a criminal investigation. There is a strong
presumption against modifying a protective order if the producing party has
reasonably relied on it, which all parties have done in this case. Modification in
those circumstances is proper only if there is a showing of improvidence in the
grant of the order or some extraordinary circumstance or compelling need. In re
Apex Oil Co., 101 B.R. 92, 103-04 (Bankr. E.D. Mo. 1989); State ex rel. Ford
Motor Co. v. Manners, 239 S.W.3d 583, 587 (Mo. banc 2007). Cf. Omaha Indem.
Co. v. Royal Am. Managers, Inc., 140 F.R.D. 398, 400 (W.D. Mo. 1991) (applying
“improvident or compelling need” test); Rogers v. Proctor & Gamble Co., 107
F.R.D. 351, 353 (E.D. Mo. 1985) (applying “intervening or extraordinary
circumstance” test). There was no improvidence here in entering the protective
order, and I cannot say that the present circumstance is extraordinary or that there
is a compelling need. I agree with plaintiffs that the subpoena at issue here does
not mandate surrender of the protected information defendants proffer to supply,
given that the subpoena expressly provides that supplying “Information deemed
relevant” is “optional.” Moreover, there is no showing that provision of the
protected information by the defendants is indispensable to the investigation, given
the expressed “option” to provide it and the admitted “convenience” to the
prosecutor in requesting it.
Accordingly,

-2-

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendants Doe Run Resources
Corporation and The Renco Group, Inc.’s Motion for Limited Relief from
Protective Order [1390] is DENIED.
In all other respects, this action remains STAYED pending disposition
of the interlocutory appeal certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) and presently
before the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals.

CATHERINE D. PERRY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated this 7th day of December, 2023.

-3-