Aubuchan et al v. Doe Run Resources Corporation et al

Filing 32

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER. (see order for details) IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion to disqualify counsel [# 30 ] is denied. Signed by District Judge Catherine D. Perry on 03/24/2014. (CBL)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
SHANE BOWMAN, et al.,
individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
THE DOE RUN RESOURCES
CORP., et al.,
Defendants.

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

Case No. 4:13 CV 2519 CDP

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before me on defendants’ motion in opposition to the pro hac vice
admission of John J. Givens. Defendants argue that I should deny pro hac vice
admission to Givens based on alleged violations of the Missouri Rules of Professional
Conduct. Defendants apparently reported these alleged violations to the Missouri
Office of the Chief Disciplinary Counsel, which declined jurisdiction over the
complaint because Givens is an Alabama attorney. Defendants complain that they are
“left without recourse to address the harm caused . . . by the violations of the Rules.”
Defendants also contend that I should rescind the pro hac vice admission status of
Givens’ co-counsel, Robert J. Camp, for the same reasons.
I will deny this motion as there is no pending pro hac vice application for
Givens before me. I also decline to reconsider the admission status of Camp, for

defendants have provided me with no evidence that he does not meet the
requirements for pro hac admission to this bar. I also note that defendants’
complaint about “lack of recourse” rings hollow, as they can certainly file a
complaint with the Alabama State Bar, Center for Professional Responsibility as
suggested by Missouri’s OCDC. If Alabama investigates any such complaint and
takes any action such that the basis for Camp’s pro hac admission status changes,
Camp is obligated to so inform this Court, and I expect him to do so. I also have no
doubt that if such an eventuality takes place, defendants will tell me all about it.
Until such time, however, I decline to reconsider my prior Order.
I am much more concerned about the “scorched earth” tactics currently being
employed by both sides in this litigation. Although this case is in its earliest stages, I
have already had both sides impugn the integrity of each other’s lawyers. I expect
better from the attorneys who appear before me. This is not an acceptable “litigation
strategy,” and such continued behavior will result in the issuance of sanctions.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion to disqualify counsel [#30] is
denied.

CATHERINE D. PERRY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated this 24th day of March, 2014.
-2-