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

Filing 713

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - (See Memorandum and Order for complete details.) IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiffs' Motion to Unseal Documents 668 is granted in part and denied in part. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall UNSEAL t he following exhibits submitted with Plaintiffs' Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (ECF 640) (see Order for details.) IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiffs are granted leave to SUBSTITUTE redacted versions of Exhibits OO (ECF 6 40-43), RR (ECF 640-46), and ZZ (ECF 640-54) and shall separately file the redacted versions in the public record no later than November 1, 2017. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall UNSEAL the following exhibits submitted with Plain tiffs' Reply in Support of Plaintiffs Motion to Compel Responses to Plaintiffs' Sixth Request for Production of Documents (ECF 627): (See Order for details.) IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiffs are granted leave to SUBSTITUTE the redac ted version of Exhibit 13 (ECF 627-13) and shall separately file the redacted version in the public record no later than November 1, 2017. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that no later than November 10, 2017, defendants shall: (See Order for details.) IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that no later than November 17, 2017, plaintiffs shall file in the public record redacted versions of their Opposition to Defendants Motion to Dismiss and Reply in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Responses to Plaintiffs' Sixth Request for Production of Documents. Signed by District Judge Catherine D. Perry on October 30, 2017. (MCB)

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 invoke the terms of my Protective Order entered in August 2015
(ECF 325) to request that I remove defendants’ confidentiality designations on
certain documents and deposition transcripts, unseal these documents/transcripts
and related memoranda, and lift all of defendants’ confidentiality designations
imposed in this case. While it cannot be disputed that defendants violated the letter
of my Protective Order, the manner by which plaintiffs sought to invoke the Order
against defendants was unreasonable. I will therefore grant plaintiffs’ request to
unseal certain documents, but with some limitations and conditions. I will give
defendants a limited period of time to complete their review of deposition
transcripts and associated exhibits. Finally, I will not order that all confidential
designations imposed by defendants in this case be lifted.
Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiffs’ Motion to Unseal Documents
[668] is granted in part and denied in part.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall UNSEAL the
following exhibits submitted with Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to
Dismiss (ECF 640):









Wilkins Declaration
Exhibit B
Exhibits E – I
Exhibits K – L
Exhibits N – NN
Exhibit QQ
Exhibits TT – YY
Exhibits AAA – QQQQ

ECF 640-1
ECF 640-3
ECF 640-6 – 640-10
ECF 640-13 – 640-14
ECF 640-16 – 640-42
ECF 640-45
ECF 640-48 – 640-53
ECF 640-55 – 640-97

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiffs are granted leave to
SUBSTITUTE redacted versions of Exhibits OO (ECF 640-43), RR (ECF 64046), and ZZ (ECF 640-54) and shall separately file the redacted versions in the
public record no later than November 1, 2017.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall UNSEAL the
following exhibits submitted with Plaintiffs’ Reply in Support of Plaintiffs’ Motion
to Compel Responses to Plaintiffs’ Sixth Request for Production of Documents
(ECF 627):
 Exhibits 1 – 12
 Exhibits 14 – 17

ECF 627-1 – 627-12
ECF 627-14 – 627-17

-2-

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiffs are granted leave to
SUBSTITUTE the redacted version of Exhibit 13 (ECF 627-13) and shall
separately file the redacted version in the public record no later than November 1,
2017.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that no later than November 10, 2017,
defendants shall:
1) complete their review of the deposition transcripts submitted with
Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, and specifically, Exhibit
A (ECF 640-2), Exhibit C (ECF 640-4), Exhibit D (ECF 640-5), Exhibits J-1 & J-2
(ECF 640-11, 640-12), Exhibit M (ECF 640-15), Exhibit PP (ECF 640-44), and
Exhibit SS (ECF 640-47), as well as any exhibits used in those depositions;
2) advise plaintiffs in writing of any change in designation of confidential
information; and, in the event defendants determine not to change the confidential
designation of a deposition excerpt or associated exhibit,
3) identify the specific portion(s) of the transcript(s) or exhibit(s) that
contain confidential information and explain to plaintiffs in writing the basis for
continued confidential designation.
Defendants are reminded that, as the parties seeking to designate any portion
of these deposition transcripts as confidential, it is their duty to identify the specific
portions of the transcript to so designate. (Prot. Ord., ECF 325, para. 13.)

-3-

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that no later than November 17, 2017,
plaintiffs shall file in the public record redacted versions of their Opposition to
Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss and Reply in Support of Plaintiffs’ Motion to
Compel Responses to Plaintiffs’ Sixth Request for Production of Documents.
All parties and counsel are reminded of their obligation to comply with all
terms of the Protective Order entered in this case. I am extremely troubled that
several terms that the parties themselves stipulated and agreed to have been
blatantly and repeatedly violated by their counsel, including the discouragement of
global designations (para. 7); the procedure by which to designate specific portions
of deposition transcripts (para. 13); and that modification of the Protective Order
can be made only by written agreement or an express Order of the Court upon
motion (para. 18). Further, while the Protective Order provides fourteen days for a
Producing Party to respond to a Receiving Party’s challenge to a confidentiality
designation (para. 12), it is unreasonable for the Receiving Party to make a onetime global challenge to hundreds of documents (comprised of thousands of pages)
that have been produced and amassed over the course of this litigation and expect a
fourteen-day turnaround without objection by the Producing Party. It is more
reasonable for the Receiving Party to review the confidential designation upon
receipt of the information and determine within a reasonable time thereafter
whether to challenge the designation. I suggest that the parties and counsel think

-4-

about this as they proceed. If the Protective Order needs to be modified, nothing
prevents the parties from seeking such modification (see paras. 4, 18).

CATHERINE D. PERRY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated this 30th day of October, 2017.

-5-