govinfo:USCOURTS-moed-4_11-cv-00044-23

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT  
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI  
EASTERN DIVISION 
 
A.O.A., et al. )  
 ) 
Plaintiffs, ) 
 ) Case No.: 4:11 CV 44 CDP 
v. )  
 )  
IRA L. RENNERT, et al.,  )  
  )  
           Defendants. )  
 
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER 
 This matter is before the Court on plaintiffs’ Motion to Stay Discovery Pending 
Appeal (ECF 1337-1, 1338 (redacted)), and plaintiffs’ Motions to File Under Seal 
(ECF 1336, 1346) wherein plaintiffs move to seal their motion to stay and their reply 
brief in support.  Defendants oppose the motions.   
 Having fully considered the issues raised by the motions to seal and the 
respective positions of the parties, I conclude that plaintiffs have provided compelling 
reasons to seal their motion to stay and their reply brief in support.  It is appropriate 
to seal matters that contain information regarding ongoing criminal investigations that 
could damage reputations and careers on account of unindicted conduct.  See In re 
Search Warrant for Secretarial Area Outside Office of Gunn, 855 F.2d 569, 574 (8th 
Cir. 1988); Certain Interested Individuals, John Does I-V, Who Are Emps. of 
McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Pulitzer Pub. Co., 895 F.2d 460, 467 (8th Cir. 1990).  I 
will therefore exercise my discretion and grant plaintiffs’ Motions to File Under Seal 
Case: 4:11-cv-00044-CDP     Doc. #:  1353     Filed: 06/15/23     Page: 1 of 2 PageID #:
<pageID>
- 2 - 
for the reasons stated in their motions, and plaintiffs’ sealed Motion to Stay 
Discovery Pending Appeal (ECF 1337-1) and sealed Reply in Support (ECF 1347-1) 
shall be deemed filed. 
 Given that plaintiffs’ motion to stay is fully briefed, I have also fully 
considered the parties’ respective positions on the issues raised in that motion.  
Although plaintiffs seek to stay “all” discovery in this case, it appears that the only 
matter in dispute is the production of notarized Plaintiff Profile Sheets.  Plaintiffs’ 
obligation to produce the PPSs in accordance with earlier Orders has existed over a 
period of years.  The interlocutory appeal presently pending before the Eighth Circuit 
does not change this existing obligation.  I will deny the motion to stay. 
 Accordingly,  
 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiffs’ Motions to File Under Seal 
[1336] [1346] are GRANTED.  Plaintiffs’ unredacted Motion to Stay Discovery 
Pending Appeal (ECF 1337-1) and Reply Brief in Support (ECF 1347-1) are deemed 
filed. 
 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiffs’ Motion to Stay Discovery 
Pending Appeal is DENIED. 
 
 
      _________________________________ 
      CATHERINE D. PERRY 
      UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 
 
Dated this 15th day of June, 2023.  
Case: 4:11-cv-00044-CDP     Doc. #:  1353     Filed: 06/15/23     Page: 2 of 2 PageID #:
<pageID>

Passage view · GavelSight