Crews et al v. Monarch Fire Protection District

Filing 95

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Movants' motion to reopen this case and the relief requested in the motion # 91 is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Monarch Fire Protection District's counsel shallretrieve and retain all documents produced under the protective order and all deposition transcripts which have any reference to those documents that were provided to Defendants. Signed by District Judge Rodney W. Sippel on 1/23/14. (ARL)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION

LESLIE CREWS, et al,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
MONARCH FIRE PROTECTION
DISTRICT, et al.,
Defendants.
ANDY STECKO and
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION
OF FIRE FIGHTERS LOCAL 2665,
Movants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 4:12 CV 142 RWS

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This lawsuit was dismissed on August 6, 2013, after summary judgment was entered on
behalf of Defendants. A protective order covering discovery in the case was entered on April 29,
2013. The order limited disclosure of discovery to anyone other than the parties to the lawsuit.
Depositions of third-parties and document requests to third-parties were conducted pursuant to
the protective order. Movant Andy Stecko was not a party to the lawsuit but he produced
documents and was deposed in the case. Movant Local 2665 was not a party to the lawsuit and
also produced documents.
Movants have filed a motion to reopen this case in order to file a motion for sanctions
and/or contempt against the Monarch Fire Protection District for an alleged violation of the
protective order. Movants assert that on November 6, 2013, during a verbal exchange at a union
grievance hearing, Board Member Jane Cunningham said, “In Andy Stecko’s deposition, he

stated that he received coaching...” Stecko was not present in the room when this statement was
made. Cunningham was interrupted and prevented from speaking further. Monarch’s counsel,
Mike Bakewell was present and stated at the hearing that he had provided Cunningham with a
copy of Stecko’s deposition and had her sign an agreement that it would not be used for any other
purpose.
Movants assert the protective order was violated by Cunningham’s receipt of a copy of
Stecko’s deposition transcript and Cunningham’s attempted use of the deposition in a matter
unrelated to the lawsuit.
Monarch responds that Stecko’s deposition was not covered under the protective order
because it was a deposition (not covered by the protective order which only pertained to
documents produced by Stecko and Local 2665) and because it was not designated
“Confidential” as required by the protective order. Monarch also asserts that even if the
deposition transcript was covered by the protective order, Cunningham, as a member of
Monarch’s board, was entitled to receive a copy of the deposition.
Movants counter that confidential documents produced under the protective order were
used throughout Stecko’s deposition. A ruling that the deposition was not covered by the
protective order would lead to the disclosure of the confidential documents discussed at the
deposition.
I find that Cunningham’s receipt of Stecko’s deposition transcript did not violate the
protective order. Monarch Fire Protection District is a party to this lawsuit. Cunningham’s
position as a member of Monarch Fire Protection District’s Board of Directors allowed her to

-2-

see such a document.1 In addition, Cunningham’s brief reference to Stecko’s deposition was cut
short by counsel. She was reminded that this deposition may be subject to the protective order
and she did not continue to discuss the deposition. That is exactly what should have happened.
Cunningham’s brief reference to the deposition does not warrant sanctions.
However, to prevent any further issues about the documents and depositions which may
be covered by the protective order, I will order Monarch’s counsel to retrieve and retain all
documents produced under the protective order and all deposition transcripts which have any
reference to those documents.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Movants’ motion to reopen this case and the relief
requested in the motion [#91] is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Monarch Fire Protection District’s counsel shall
retrieve and retain all documents produced under the protective order and all deposition
transcripts which have any reference to those documents that were provided to Defendants.

_____________________________________
RODNEY W. SIPPEL
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated this 23rd day of January, 2014.

1

Monarch Fire Protection District is a party to this lawsuit. By Missouri statute, the
District acts through its Board of Directors. Section 321.600 R.S.Mo. The Directors are the
statutorily designated representatives of the Monarch Fire Protection District.
-3-