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

Filing 636

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER. (See Full Order.) IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Responses to Plaintiffs' Sixth Request for Production of Documents 601 is GRANTED with the included limited exception. IT IS FURTHER ORDERE D that within thirty (30) days of the date of this Order, defendants must: 1) produce all documents requested in plaintiffs' motion to compel, with the only exception being possible limited production to Requests 9(d), 9(e), 12, and 13, as deter mined after counsel meet and confer regarding narrowing the scope of such production; and 2) supplement their production in response to Request 42 of plaintiffs First Request for Production of Documents, including providing the certification requested by plaintiffs in their motion to compel. Signed by District Judge Catherine D. Perry on 8/29/2017. (CBL)

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
Plaintiffs move to compel responses to their Sixth Request for Production of
Documents. The requests seek extensive financial information, which plaintiffs
argue is relevant to the merits of the case, including the issue of piercing the
corporate veil, and to the determination of foreign law. Defendants argue that the
burden of complying with the requests is disproportionate to the issues in the case
and that the requests seek sensitive financial information. They also argue that
plaintiffs already have what they need.
I agree with plaintiffs that, in general, the requested discovery is relevant
and is necessary. I also agree that these requests are not duplicative and that there
is no other way for plaintiffs to obtain this necessary financial information. In the
context of this very complex case, the burden of complying with most of these
requests is not unreasonable. Moreover, plaintiffs have made a strong preliminary

showing, by attaching documents that defendants have already produced, that the
defendants were extensively involved, from the United States, in the management
of the La Oroya complex; that defendants seriously undercapitalized the Peruvian
operations; and that defendants comingled funds throughout their operations,
including providing use of various corporate and trust entities that ultimately
provided personal benefits to defendant Ira L. Rennert. In view of the corporate
veil issues, I do not agree with defendants’ contention that the time period relevant
to this litigation terminated when the La Oroya complex ceased operations.
Serious questions have thus been raised that require additional discovery on issues
directly relevant to the amended complaint, including whether funds were diverted
to the personal benefit of Rennert or others instead of being used for environmental
and other safeguards in the Peruvian operations.
I am concerned, however, that the parties have not sufficiently conferred in
an attempt to reduce the burden of this production with respect to some requests. I
will therefore direct the parties to meet and confer on a few aspects of the requests,
but generally I am granting the motion.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Responses
to Plaintiffs’ Sixth Request for Production of Documents [601] is GRANTED with
the following limited exception: The parties must meet and confer and attempt to
-2-

narrow the scope of Requests 9(d) and 9(e), as well as Requests 12 and 13. To be
clear, I have determined that the records sought in these requests are relevant and
that sufficient records responsive to the requests must be produced, but it appears
that some narrowing of the requests is possible and would still provide plaintiffs
with the necessary information.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within thirty (30) days of the date of
this Order, defendants must: 1) produce all documents requested in plaintiffs’
motion to compel, with the only exception being possible limited production to
Requests 9(d), 9(e), 12, and 13, as determined after counsel meet and confer
regarding narrowing the scope of such production; and 2) supplement their
production in response to Request 42 of plaintiffs’ First Request for Production of
Documents, including providing the certification requested by plaintiffs in their
motion to compel.

_________________________________
CATHERINE D. PERRY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated this 29th day of August, 2017.

-3-