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

Filing 704

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER. (See Full Order.) IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that no later than Wednesday, November 1, 2017, each side will propose to one another the names of two candidates for Special Master. These proposals shall not be filed with the Court at that time. No later than Monday, November 6, 2017, the parties shall meet and confer and submit to the Court either: 1) the name of their agreed-to candidate; or 2) in the event the parties are unable to agree to a candidate, the names and quali fications of the candidates proposed by each side. This submission shall include an explanation of the parties' efforts to agree to a candidate, each side's respective position regarding the suitability of their proposed candidates, and a statement regarding the availability and willingness of their proposed candidates to preside over the dispute. Signed by District Judge Catherine D. Perry on 10/26/2017. (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
Defendants have produced millions of documents in this complex litigation
and have redacted, withheld, and/or clawed back nearly 22,000 documents,
asserting various claims of privilege. During the status conference held in
September 2017, counsel informed me that, despite meet and confer conferences,
significant disputes remained regarding the propriety of defendants’ asserted
claims of privilege. At my instruction, the parties submitted to me their respective
proposals regarding a procedure by which these disputes can be resolved
expeditiously. Upon review of these proposals, I agree with defendants that
appointment of a Special Master is appropriate and necessary given the volume
and breadth of the disputed documents at issue. Further, complex dispositive
issues are currently before the Court with briefing nearly complete, and the parties
continue to engage in extensive motion practice regarding discovery and other

matters that demand attention and resolution given impending deadlines and timesensitive schedules. Considering these matters as well as the need for effective and
timely resolution of the privilege disputes, I find that appointing a Special Master
will provide the most efficient and expeditious way to resolve such disputes. See
Fed. R. Civ. P. 53(a)(1)(C). I therefore adopt defendants’ proposed procedure for
resolution of privilege log issues.
I expect the parties to confer in good faith in an attempt to reach agreement
about possible candidates for appointment to Special Master. In the event the
parties are unable to agree, the submissions ordered below shall include an
explanation of these efforts and the names of candidates who are acceptable to
each side. The parties are advised to consult Fed. R. Civ. P. 53(a)(2) when
considering possible candidates.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that no later than Wednesday, November 1,
2017, each side will propose to one another the names of two candidates for
Special Master. These proposals shall not be filed with the Court at that time. No
later than Monday, November 6, 2017, the parties shall meet and confer and
submit to the Court either: 1) the name of their agreed-to candidate; or 2) in the
event the parties are unable to agree to a candidate, the names and qualifications of
the candidates proposed by each side. This submission shall include an

-2-

explanation of the parties’ efforts to agree to a candidate, each side’s respective
position regarding the suitability of their proposed candidates, and a statement
regarding the availability and willingness of their proposed candidates to preside
over the dispute.

CATHERINE D. PERRY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated this 26th day of October, 2017.

-3-