The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit issued a published opinion Tuesday in a complex discovery dispute involving The Renco Group Inc. and The Doe Run Resources Corporation against three law firms representing plaintiffs who claimed harm from the companies' mining operations in Peru.
The case, *In re: The Renco Group Inc. and The Doe Run Resources Corporation* (11th Cir. 2026), arose from what Circuit Judge Marcus described as "an acrimonious discovery dispute" between the mining companies and legal representatives of affected parties in Peru.
The Renco Group Inc. and its subsidiary, The Doe Run Resources Corporation, are involved in the mining and production of heavy metals in the Republic of Peru. The companies faced legal challenges from plaintiffs who claimed they were harmed by the conduct of those companies' operations.
Three law firms served as appellants in the case: Halpern, LLC, and jointly, Rodriguez Tramont & Nuñez, P.A. and Napoli Shkolnik, PLLC. These firms represented the plaintiffs in the underlying litigation against Renco's mining operations.
The dispute originated in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, where Renco filed an ex parte application pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1782. Section 1782 allows U.S. district courts to order discovery for use in foreign proceedings, a tool often used in international litigation to gather evidence located in the United States for use in foreign courts.
The case carries significance beyond the immediate parties involved, as it represents the growing complexity of international litigation involving U.S. companies operating abroad and the discovery obligations that can arise from such operations. Mining companies with international operations often face legal challenges in multiple jurisdictions, creating complex procedural issues about where and how evidence can be obtained.
The involvement of multiple prominent law firms as intervenor plaintiffs-appellants suggests the case involved substantial stakes and potentially significant legal principles affecting the practice of international discovery. Napoli Shkolnik PLLC and the other firms are well-known for handling mass tort and environmental litigation cases.
The fact that the Eleventh Circuit designated this opinion "FOR PUBLICATION" indicates the court viewed the decision as establishing important precedent that will guide future cases. Published opinions carry precedential value and must be followed by lower courts within the circuit's jurisdiction, which includes Alabama, Florida, and Georgia.
The procedural complexity of the case is evident from the multiple parties involved and their various roles. The Renco companies served as appellees, while the law firms held different procedural positions - some as intervenor plaintiffs-appellants and others as intervenor-appellants. Victor Careaga appeared as a respondent in the proceedings.
Discovery disputes in international litigation often center on issues such as the scope of permissible discovery, the burden on parties to produce documents and testimony, and the balance between U.S. discovery rules and foreign legal principles. Companies operating internationally frequently face challenges when U.S. courts order broad discovery that may conflict with foreign privacy laws or other legal restrictions.
The case also highlights the challenges facing companies in the extractive industries, particularly those with operations in Latin America. Environmental and health-related litigation has become increasingly common as communities and advocacy groups seek to hold multinational corporations accountable for the environmental and health impacts of mining operations.
The involvement of The Doe Run Resources Corporation is particularly notable given the company's history of environmental litigation. The company has faced various legal challenges related to its mining operations and environmental remediation obligations.
The Eleventh Circuit's decision in this matter will likely influence how similar discovery disputes are resolved in the future, particularly those involving international mining operations and the complex procedural questions that arise when multiple law firms represent affected parties in different jurisdictions.
The opinion was written by Circuit Judge Marcus, with participation from Circuit Judge Wilson and District Judge Jones, who sat by designation. The three-judge panel's unanimous participation in the published opinion suggests agreement on the legal principles at stake.
For companies with international operations, the decision provides guidance on the scope and limitations of Section 1782 discovery applications. For law firms representing plaintiffs in international litigation, the ruling clarifies procedural requirements and potential limitations on discovery strategies.
The case number 24-13266 indicates the matter was filed in 2024, suggesting the litigation has progressed relatively quickly through the federal court system to reach the appellate level.
The ultimate resolution of the underlying dispute between the mining companies and the affected parties in Peru may depend on how the discovery issues resolved in this appeal affect the ability of each side to present their case in future proceedings.