ST. LOUIS — A federal judge has denied, without prejudice, a motion by Bauman Oil Distributors to quash a discovery request from BP Products North America Inc., citing the defendant’s failure to comply with local rules requiring attorneys to confer in good faith before bringing discovery disputes to the court.
The ruling was issued January 26 by U.S. District Judge Henry Edward Autrey in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, Eastern Division.
The dispute centers on Bauman Oil’s July 14, motion to quash BP’s request for documents.
In its motion, Bauman Oil argued that it had already produced the requested materials, with the exception of documents it contended were protected by the client/insurer privilege.
BP opposed the motion, asserting that the defendant’s production was incomplete and that additional steps were required to resolve the dispute.
According to the court’s opinion, BP acknowledged that Bauman Oil had produced certain insurance policies covering the period from 1983 to 2003.
However, BP argued that this production did not eliminate the requirement that other entities, identified as Riverstone and/or Ranger, produce any relevant policies in their possession.
BP further challenged Bauman Oil’s reliance on privilege, arguing that the defendant should be required to produce a privilege log so that the validity of the privilege claims could be evaluated.
In addition to contesting the substance of the motion, BP argued that the motion to quash should be denied outright because Bauman Oil failed to comply with Local Rule 3.04 of the Eastern District of Missouri.
That rule requires that any motion relating to discovery include a statement certifying that counsel for the moving party has conferred in person or by telephone with opposing counsel in good faith, or has made reasonable efforts to do so, before seeking court intervention.
The rule also requires details such as the date, time, manner of the conference and the individuals involved or a specific description of the efforts made to confer.
Autrey noted the importance of the meet-and-confer requirement, noting that such discussions can narrow and clarify issues, saving both judicial resources and the parties’ time.
In support of this principle, the court cited prior decisions observing that adherence to local discovery rules often allows disputes to be resolved more efficiently than through formal briefing.
The court found that Bauman Oil’s counsel did not certify that he had conferred with BP’s counsel to resolve the dispute, as required by Local Rule 3.04.
As a result, Autrey denied the motion to quash without prejudice, meaning the defendant is not barred from raising the issue again if procedural requirements are met.
In the order, the judge outlined the steps Bauman Oil must take if it wishes to pursue the issue further.
If the defendant maintains its dispute with BP’s subpoena, counsel for Bauman Oil must meet and confer with BP’s counsel in good faith.
Should the parties be unable to resolve the dispute, in whole or in part, after such a conference, Bauman Oil may refile its motion to quash.
Any refiled motion must specifically detail the meeting between counsel and identify which documents remain outstanding.
The court also directed that Bauman Oil provide a privilege log to BP before the meet-and-confer session.
This requirement is intended to allow BP to assess the defendant’s claims of privilege and to facilitate a more informed discussion between the parties regarding the disputed materials.
The opinion memorandum and order were signed by Autrey on Jan. 26, and entered into the record the same day.
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, Eastern Division case number: 4:24-cv-01161
