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

Filing 918

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER. (See Full Order.) IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the defendants' Motion for Reconsideration Pursuant to Rule 54(b) 914 is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendants' Motion for Leave to File in Excess of Page Limitat ion 915 is GRANTED. As the defendants' objections to the amount of plaintiffs' fee request remain under submission, IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiffs must file any response to these objections no later than August 13, 2018. Signed by District Judge Catherine D. Perry on 7/13/2018. (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
On March 12, 2018, I granted plaintiffs’ motion for sanctions [ECF # 837]
for defendants’ failure to comply with previous court orders to compel production
of documents. I ordered defendants to pay plaintiffs’ reasonable attorney’s fees
associated with the bringing of the motion for sanctions and for the investigation of
defendants’ non-compliance. Plaintiffs filed their fee statement [ECF # 875] on
May 11, 2018, and defendants now seek reconsideration of sanctions and object to
the amount of the fee statement by plaintiffs. Defendants also ask for leave to file
an over length brief in support of their motion; the brief is sixty-one pages, with
more than 350 pages of exhibits.
I will deny defendants’ motion for reconsideration. I will grant defendants’
motion for leave to file in excess of page limitation because the portion of the brief
arguing in support of the motion to reconsider is only fifteen pages. The remainder

of the document relates to their objection to the amount of the fee request, which
remains pending.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) permits the district court to “exercise
its general discretionary authority to review and revise its interlocutory rulings
prior to the entry of final judgment.” Auto Servs. Co., Inc. v. KPMG, LLP, 537
F.3d 853, 856-57 (8th Cir. 2008) (citing Partmar Corp. v. Paramount Pictures
Theatres Corp., 347 U.S. 89, 100 (1954) (observing that “[t]he power remained in
the trial court until the entry of his final judgment to set aside, for appropriate
reasons,” orders previously entered in the case. I may also grant reconsideration if
I patently misunderstood a party, made a decision outside the adversarial issues
presented to me by the parties, made an error not of reasoning but of apprehension,
or where a controlling or significant change in the law or facts has occurred since
the issue was submitted to the Court. See Singh v. George Washington Univ., 383
F. Supp. 2d 99, 101 (D.D.C. 2005). Although I have the power to revisit my prior
decisions, I “should be loathe to do so” in the absence of such extraordinary
circumstances. Christianson v. Colt Indus. Operating Corp., 486 U.S. 800, 817
(1988). “[T]he Court . . . has an interest in judicial economy and ensuring respect
for the finality of its decisions, values which would be undermined if it were to
routinely reconsider its interlocutory orders.” Trickey v. Kaman Indus. Techs.
Corp., No. 1:09CV26 SNLJ, 2011 WL 2118578, at *2 (E.D. Mo. May 26, 2011).
2

In their motion, defendants ask that I reconsider and vacate the order
granting the motion for sanctions. Defendants argue that they never had
possession, custody, or control over Doe Run Peru’s documents, thereby making it
impossible to comply with previous orders compelling production. Defendants
introduce recently created new evidence stating that Doe Run Peru’s records are
under the control of the Peruvian Liquidator. Further, defendants argue that
because it was impossible to obtain the documents, the plaintiffs were never
prejudiced by defendant’s violation of my court orders.
These arguments fail because defendants ignore the basis for my order for
imposing sanctions, which was defendants’ failure to comply with previous court
orders; specifically my August 29, 2017 order (granting the Sixth Motion to
Compel) and my April 7, 2014 order (making it clear that defendants could not
claim they did not possess or control Doe Run Peru documents). Defendants again
make this latter claim, and fail to realize their non-compliance is the basis for
sanctions: Defendants never attempted to comply with earlier orders until January
of this year. As the order for sanctions explains, plaintiffs have been prejudiced by
defendants’ failure to comply with the orders, thereby impairing plaintiffs’ ability
to present the factual merits of their claim. Avionic Co. v. General Dynamics
Corp., 957 F.2d 555, 559 (8th Cir. 1992). The new evidence presented does not
change the underlying factual basis for why the order for sanctions was granted;
3

therefore, the defendants have failed to present the “extraordinary circumstances”
required for reconsideration under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b).
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the defendants’ Motion for
Reconsideration Pursuant to Rule 54(b) [914] is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendants’ Motion for Leave to File in
Excess of Page Limitation [915] is GRANTED.
As the defendants’ objections to the amount of plaintiffs’ fee request remain
under submission, IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiffs must file any
response to these objections no later than August 13, 2018.

CATHERINE D. PERRY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated this13th day of July, 2018.

4