___________ No. 96-3652

___________ In re: Missouri Department of * Natural Resources, * Petition for Writ of Mandamus. * Petitioner. *

___________ Submitted: November 20, 1996 Filed: January 29, 1997

___________ Before WOLLMAN, BEAM and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

___________ BEAM, Circuit Judge.

The Missouri Department of Natural Resources (“MDNR”) seeks a wri t of man damus directing the Honorable Joseph E. Stevens, United State s District Judge for the Western District of Missouri, to vacate his order denyi ng MDNR’s motion to quash subpoenas duces tecum served upon it by litigants in a case in which MDNR is not a party . Because we believe that the district court’s order adequately protects a ll privileged information, we deny mandamus.

I. BACKGROUND

Und erlying this discovery dispute is the detection of hazardou s substances in the water of Newton County, Missouri. MDNR investigated an d eventually identifiedFAG Bearings Corporation as potentially responsible for the contamination. Residents of the contaminated area then sued FAG infederal court. Thomas v. FAG Bearings Corp. , 846 F. Supp. 1382 (W.D. Mo. 1994 ). FAG tried to involuntarily join MDNR in that case based o n MDNR’s pr evious statements that it intended to sue FAG for the costs o f remediation. On appeal, we held that forcing MDNR to participate

### -2-

in the suit would vio late the Eleventh Amendment. Thomas v. FAG Bearings Corp. , 50 F.3d 502 (8th Cir. 1995).

FAGultimately settled with the Thomas plaintiffs, paying out ove r four million dollars. It then initiated litigat ion to recover the cost of that settlement from others it claims were the real source of the Newton County contamination. The MDNR investigation continues, as does MDNR’ s representationthat it is preparing to sue FAG. FAG served a subpoen a duces tecum on MDNR seeking documents relating t o the investigation. MDNR refused to produce 137 of the requested documents, based on variou s assertions of privilege, and moved to quash the subpoenas.

The district court, after examining the privilege log and th e extensi ve record in this and related cases, ordered production of th e docume nts with the proviso that: (1) the identity of confidentia l informants would be r edacted; (2) certain draft documents would be exempt from discovery; and (3) the mental impressions o r legal conclusions of any government attorney w ould be redacted. MDNR now petitions this court for a writ of mandamus ordering the district court to quash the subpoenas.

II. DISCUSSION
The manag ement of discovery is committed to the sound discretion of the trial court. Bunting v. Sea Ray, Inc. , 99 F.3d 887, 890 (8th Cir

. 1996). The scope of our review of discovery orders is both narrow an d deferential. Baker v . General Motors Corp. , 86 F.3d 811, 816 (8th Cir.), petition for cert. filed , 65 U.S.L.W. 3342 (U.S. Oct. 22, 1996).
Discoveryorders involving claims of privilege can be subject t o mandamus review. E.g. , In re Remington Arms Co. , 952 F.2d 1029, 1031 (8th Cir. 1991) (reviewing order compelling production of alleged trad e secrets); Diversified Indus. v. Meredith , 572 F.2d

### We note that the district court specifica lly found that these 1 

### documents were created in the normal course of business rath er than in a nticipation of litigation, thus not qualifying as protecte d work product. We therefore do not reach the question of a nonparty’s ability to invoke the protection of Federal Rule o f Civil Procedure 26(b)(3). -3- 596, 599 (8th Cir. 1977) (reviewing order compel ling disclosure over claim of attorney-client privilege). However, issuance of a writ of mandamu s “`i s a drastic remedy to be invoked only in extraordinary situations.’ ” In re S DDS, Inc. , 97 F.3d 1030, 1034 (8th Cir. 1996) (quoting Melahn v
. Pennock I ns. , 965 F.2d 1497, 1501 (8th Cir. 1992)). A party seekin g issuance of a writ of mandamus must “have no other adequate means to attai n the rel ief he desires and [must show that his] right to issuance of th e writ is clear and undisputable.” Allied Chem. C orp. v. Daiflon, Inc. , 449 U.S. 33, 35 (1980) (per curiam) (citations omitted). Careful review o f this case leads us to conclude that mandamus relief is not warranted.
MDNR asserts a variety of privileges including attorney work pr oduct, deliberative process privilege, the government’s privilege agains t identifying informants, and protection from pre-enforcement review. The district court’s orde r specifically allows MDNR to redact all information that identifies infor mants and legal opinions and strategies. This order provides a dequate protection of legitimately privileged information. We 1
assume that the district court will address any additional concern s regarding specific documents by reviewing them i n camera. Black v. United States , 62 F.3d 1115, 1119 & n.6 (8th Cir. 1995) (citing In re Eisenberg , 654 F.2 d 1107, 1112 n.7 (5th Cir. 1981)), cert. denied , 116 S. Ct. 154 1 (19 96). Thus MDNR has failed to establish that it is threatened wit h irreparable harm or that it lacks adequate alternatives for relief.

### -4- MDNRalso asserts that the district court’s order violates ou r holding in Thomas v. FAG Bearings Corp. , 50 F.3d 502 (8th Cir. 1995). In Thomas , we held that compelling the state “to prosecute FAG at a time and place dictated by the federal courts” would violate the Eleventh Amendment

. Id. at 505. We noted that forcing MDNR to litig ate its claims prematurely “und ermines the two aims of the Eleventh Amendment: protection for a state’s autonomy and protection for its pocketbook.” Id. at 506 (citing Hess v. Port Auth. Trans-Hudson Corp. , 513 U.S. 30, ___, 115 S. Ct. 394, 400 (1994)).
The issues implicated in this discov ery dispute are far removed from Thomas . MDNR has not shown how production of th ese documents infringes on the State of Missouri ’s autonomy or threatens its treasury. Governmental units are subject to the same discovery rules as other persons and entitie s having contact with the federal courts. United States v. Procter & Gamble , 356 U.S. 677, 681 (1958). There is simply no authority for the position that the Eleventh Ame ndment shields government entities from discovery in federal court.

III. CONCLUSION

We have carefully considered the remainder of MDNR’s arguments an d find them to be without merit. The petition for a writ of mandamus i s denied.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.