Father Chris Collins et al v. The Doe Run Resources Coperation et al

Filing 718

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs motion for an Anti-Suit Injunction 671 is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants shall provide to Plaintiffs counsel in this case and in the companion case of A.O.A., et al. v. Rennert, et al, 4:11CV44 CDP with any and all subpoena and discovery requests made in the federal and state court actions in Florida. (see full memo and order for details.) Signed by District Judge Rodney W. Sippel on 01/26/2023. (KRZ)

Case: 4:15-cv-01704-RWS Doc. #: 718 Filed: 01/26/23 Page: 1 of 5 PageID #: 21885

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
J.Y.C.C., et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
DOE RUN RESOURCES, CORP.,
et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 4:15 CV 1704 RWS

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
On October 21, 2021, Defendants filed a motion and memorandum asserting
fraudulent conduct by two former Plaintiff recruiters and document collectors in
this case and in the companion case of A.O.A., et al. v. Rennert, et al, 4:11CV44
CDP. Ten months earlier, Defendants The Doe Run Resources Corporation and
The Renco Group, Inc. had already initiated a criminal proceeding in Peru to
investigate the alleged fraud. Subsequent motion practice regarding these
allegations took place in this case. During numerous hearings I stated that the
allegations of fraud would initially be addressed in the ordinary course if discovery
exposed specific incidences of fraudulent conduct in the 108 initial trial pool
plaintiffs’ cases.
Despite this ruling, on April 12, 2022, Defendants The Doe Run Resources
Corporation and The Renco Group, Inc. filed an ex parte motion in the United

Case: 4:15-cv-01704-RWS Doc. #: 718 Filed: 01/26/23 Page: 2 of 5 PageID #: 21886

States District Court for the Southern District of Florida to take discovery of a
former attorney who worked on both cases before this Court. See In Re Matter of
the Ex Parte Application of the Renco Group Inc. and Doe Run Resources
Corporation for an Order to Take Discovery Pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 1782,
1:22MC 2225 JAL. As the alleged victims of fraud in Peru, Defendants provided
a Peruvian prosecutor with a denuncia which, in essence, is a request for the
prosecutor to look into an alleged criminal activity. Defendants assert that they do
not have any control over the criminal investigation and prosecution. However, it
is undisputed that the entity providing the denuncia can provide the prosecutor
with evidence, suggest the names of people to question, suggest questions for the
prosecutor to ask people, and be present when these people are interviewed.
Although Defendants may not have full control over the investigation and
prosecution it appears they certainly have a great deal of influence in the process if
a prosecutor is willing to take on the case. To that end, Defendants, not the
Peruvian prosecutor, filed the § 1782 action in Florida federal court requesting a
subpoena seeking to depose the former attorney and to obtain any and all
documents regarding the recruitment of plaintiffs in the cases in this Court to be
used as evidence in the criminal investigation in Peru. The subpoena does not limit
its request to only former plaintiffs of the cases in this Court. The District Judge in
2

Case: 4:15-cv-01704-RWS Doc. #: 718 Filed: 01/26/23 Page: 3 of 5 PageID #: 21887

Florida granted the motion on June 8, 2022.
On April 29, 2022, Defendants The Doe Run Resources Corporation and
The Renco Group, Inc. filed a malicious prosecution case in Florida state court
against the same former attorney and another Florida attorney for their activities in
both cases in this Court. See Doe Run Resources Corp., et al. v. Louis Thaler,
Esq., et al., No. 2022-007907 CA 15 (Fla. 11th Judicial Cir.). Based on the scope
of the subpoena obtained in the federal court action, discovery in the state court
case potentially may seek information regarding the recruitment of current
plaintiffs in the cases before this Court.
On July 13, 2022, Plaintiffs filed a motion for injunctive relief under the All
Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a) seeking an order barring Defendants The Doe Run
Resources Corporation and The Renco Group, Inc. from obtaining discovery in the
two Florida court actions regarding the plaintiffs in this Court and concerning
Plaintiffs’ counsel’s work product and privileged communications. Plaintiffs
assert that Defendants’ Florida proceedings are circumventing my rulings
regarding the fraudulent recruitment accusations raised by Defendants.
On October 28, 2022, I held a joint hearing of Plaintiffs’ motion with United
States District Judge Catherine D. Perry who presides over the companion case in
this Court. Plaintiffs’ counsel in the companion case also attended the hearing.
3

Case: 4:15-cv-01704-RWS Doc. #: 718 Filed: 01/26/23 Page: 4 of 5 PageID #: 21888

Plaintiffs argued that Defendants should not be allowed to seek discovery in
the Florida courts that has already been addressed in this Court. Defendants
asserted in their response brief and at oral argument of this motion that the
subpoena they obtained in the federal court action and the discovery they will seek
in the state court lawsuit is directed at only at plaintiffs whose claims have been
dismissed from the cases in this Court. I take Defendants’ representations at their
word. Defendants admit that some of their discovery requests may initially be
overbroad seeking information about the recruitment of all plaintiffs. Defendants
assert that any overbroad requests would be subject to attorney-client and work
product privilege objections that may be asserted and submitted to the judges in the
respective Florida cases.
Defendants have the right to attempt to assert malicious prosecution claims
against former plaintiffs and have the right to seek discovery in aid of the criminal
investigation underway in Peru. However, Defendants may not ignore my rulings
that limited any discovery from current plaintiffs regarding Defendants’ allegations
of the fraudulent recruitment of plaintiffs. In order to provide assurance to
Plaintiffs’ counsel that Defendants are not seeking impermissible discovery in the
Florida actions I will require Defendants to provide to Plaintiffs’ counsel in this
case and in the companion case of A.O.A., et al. v. Rennert, et al, 4:11CV44 CDP
4

Case: 4:15-cv-01704-RWS Doc. #: 718 Filed: 01/26/23 Page: 5 of 5 PageID #: 21889

with any and all subpoena and discovery requests made in the federal and state
court actions in Florida. Defendants should provide copies of subpoena and
discovery requests directly to Plaintiffs’ counsel through their email addresses.
Defendants shall not file any of this information in the cases in this Court. In
addition, Defendants shall file a copy of this order in the federal and state court
actions in Florida.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ motion for an Anti-Suit
Injunction [671] is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants shall provide to Plaintiffs’
counsel in this case and in the companion case of A.O.A., et al. v. Rennert, et al,
4:11CV44 CDP with any and all subpoena and discovery requests made in the
federal and state court actions in Florida. This information shall be provided to
Plaintiffs’ counsel directly through their emails and should not be docketed in the
cases in this Court.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants shall file a copy of this
order in the federal and state court actions in Florida.
_________________________________
RODNEY W. SIPPEL
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated this 26th day of January, 2023.
5