govinfo:USCOURTS-moed-4_23-cv-00830-9

1 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI 
EASTERN DIVISION 
BRENDA HILLMANN, ET AL., ) 
) 
 
 Plaintiffs, )  
v. ) Case No. 4:23-cv-00830-SEP 
 )          
GREE USA, INC., ET AL., )  
 )  
 Defendants. )  
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER 
 This matter is before the Court on non-party Intervenor Armed Forces Insurance’s 
motion requesting relief from the protective order entered in this case for the limited 
purpose of permitting defense expert Derek Starr, who was retained by Intervenor as an 
expert in another lawsuit against Defendants, Armed Forces Insurance a/s/o Randall and 
Kari Hyer v. Gree USA, Inc., No. 2:23-cv-4316 (E.D. Pa.), to use documents he relied upon in 
this case—which are designated  confidential under the protective order—to prepare his 
expert report and testimony in that case.
1  Doc. [268].  Defendants oppose the motion.  
Docs. [277], [284].  For the reasons set forth below, Intervenor’s motion is granted. 
DISCUSSION 
 “In the Eighth Circuit, a prospective intervenor ‘must establish Article III standing in 
addition to the requirements of Rule 24.’”  Nat’l Parks Conservation Ass’n v. E.P.A., 759 F.3d 
969, 974-75 (8th Cir. 2014) (quoting United States v. Metro. St. Louis Sewer Dist., 569 F.3d 
829, 834 (8th Cir. 2009)).  Article III standing requires (1) injury, (2) causation, and (3) 
redressability.  Metro. St. Louis Sewer Dist., 569 F.3d at 833-34.  “A court ruling on a motion 
to intervene must accept as true all material allegations in the motion to intervene and 
must construe the motion in favor of the prospective intervenor.”  Nat’l Parks Conservation 
Ass’n, 759 F.3d at 973.  Here, Defendants do not question whether Intervenor has 
established Article III standing.  Construing the record in favor of Intervenor, the Court 
finds that Intervenor has established standing. 
 
1 Armed Forces Insurance’s motion is substantively similar to a motion filed earlier in the case by 
intervenors Cynthia Reynolds, Raymond Hopp, Robert and Patricia Hutton, Kurt and Danica Herritz, 
Robert and Kathy Chinouth, and Linda and Michael Mester, which was granted.  Docs. [174], [208]. 
Case: 4:23-cv-00830-SEP     Doc. #:  306     Filed: 06/11/26     Page: 1 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>
2 
“[P]ermissive intervention is the proper method for a nonparty to seek a 
modification of a protective order.”  AT&T Corp. v. Sprint Corp., 407 F.3d 560, 562 (2d Cir. 
2005) (citation modified).  Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(b) states, in relevant part:  
“On timely motion, the court may permit anyone to intervene who . . . has a claim or 
defense that shares with the main action a common question of law or fact.”  See also In re 
Reporters Comm. for Freedom of the Press, 773 F.2d 1325, 1333 (D.C. Cir. 1985) (Rule 24(b) 
allows third parties “to have their day in court to contest the scope or need for 
confidentiality.”). 
 Permissive intervention is inherently discretionary.  Hodgson v. United Mine Workers 
of America, 473 F.2d 118, 125 n.36 (D.C. Cir. 1972).  “Rule 24(b) provides that anyone ‘may’ 
be permitted to intervene if the requirements of the rule are satisfied, and makes reference 
to the fact that a court must ‘exercis[e] its discretion’ when deciding whether to allow 
intervention.”  E.E.O.C. v. Nat’l Children’s Ctr., Inc., 146 F.3d 1042, 1046 (D.C. Cir. 1998) 
(quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(b)(1) and (3)).  The Eighth Circuit has advised district courts to 
err on the side of intervention.  See Turn Key Gaming, Inc. v. Oglala Sioux Tribe, 164 F.3d 
1080, 1081 (8th Cir. 1999) (“Rule 24 is to be construed liberally, and doubts resolved in 
favor of the proposed intervenor.”). 
 “Normally, parties seeking permissive intervention pursuant to Rule 24(b) must 
show:  (1) an independent ground for jurisdiction, (2) timeliness of the motion, and (3) that 
the applicant’s claim or defense and the main action have a question of law or fact in 
common.”  Flynt v. Lombardi, 782 F.3d 963, 966 (8th Cir. 2015) (citing United States v. 
Union Elec. Co., 64 F.3d 1152, 1170 n.9 (8th Cir. 1995)).  “However, when a party is seeking 
to intervene only to modify a protective order or unseal documents, and not to litigate a 
claim on the merits,” the Eighth Circuit has held that “an independent basis of jurisdiction is 
not required,” id. at 967, and “’there is no reason to require such a strong nexus of fact or 
law,’” id. (quoting Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int’l Ins. Co., 966 F.2d 470, 474 (9th Cir. 1992)).  
That said, when parties disagree on a question of confidentiality, “that confidentiality is—in 
the language of Rule 24(b)(2)—a ‘question of law . . . in common’” between the parties and 
prospective intervenors.  Jessup v. Luther, 227 F.3d 993, 999 (7th Cir. 2000). 
 Having reviewed the record and the parties’ briefs, the Court finds that Intervenor 
has satisfied Rule 24(b)’s standard for permissive intervention for the limited purpose of 
Case: 4:23-cv-00830-SEP     Doc. #:  306     Filed: 06/11/26     Page: 2 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>
3 
seeking relief from the protective order in this case.  The Court also finds that modifying 
the protecting order as requested would reduce duplicative discovery and is not being 
requested for purposes of circumventing discovery limitations in other litigation.  See 
Beckman, 966 F.2d at 475-76; Quinonez-Castellanos v. Performance Contractors Inc., 2018 
WL 10015527, at *5 (N.D. Iowa Oct. 9, 2018) (quoting United Nuclear Corp. v. Cranford Ins. 
Co., 905 F.2d 1424, 1428 (10th Cir. 1990)).  As such, Intervenor’s motion is granted.  
 This ruling is limited to the documents named in Mr. Starr’s expert report in support 
of his expert opinion regarding the defectiveness of the dehumidifiers.  This ruling does not 
prevent Defendants from raising objections to the admissibility of such documents in the 
collateral suit, including but not limited to objections based on relevance, privilege, and 
timeliness.  If Defendants are concerned that the use of any particular document would 
violate a norm or rule of another court, the appropriate forum for raising that concern is in 
that court. 
 Accordingly,   
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Armed Forces Insurance’s Motion for Relief from the 
Protective Order, Doc. [268], is GRANTED, and the protective order is amended to permit 
Armed Forces Insurance to use any documents disclosed in accordance with this order in 
Armed Forces Insurance a/s/o Randall and Kari Hyer v. Gree USA, Inc., No. 2:23-cv-4316 
(E.D. Pa.), subject to the terms of any protective order in that matter and in accordance 
with the rulings and orders of the presiding court. 
 
Dated this 11th day of June, 2026.   
     
  SARAH E. PITLYK 
  UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 
Case: 4:23-cv-00830-SEP     Doc. #:  306     Filed: 06/11/26     Page: 3 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

Passage view · GavelSight