Kasso v. City of Minneapolis

Background

Leila Kasso alleged that the defendants unlawfully discriminated against her. The opinion states that she began working for the City of Minneapolis Police Department in 2006 and reported the alleged discrimination to the Minnesota Department of Human Rights and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. She filed this lawsuit on September 8, 2023, and filed an amended complaint on January 1, 2024.

The court had set a deadline for further amendments and later extended that deadline to June 14. Kasso then filed a letter with a proposed amended complaint. The court treated the letter as a motion for permission to amend. The proposed amendments sought to add claims based on perceived disability discrimination and workers’ compensation retaliation.

Motion to Amend

The court denied Kasso’s letter motion to amend. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15 generally requires a party to obtain the opposing party’s consent or the court’s permission to amend a complaint after the automatic amendment period has ended. The District of Minnesota’s Local Rule 15.1 also required Kasso to submit a version of the proposed amended complaint showing, through formatting such as redlining or underlining, how it differed from the operative complaint.

The court had previously explained these requirements and extended the deadline to give Kasso an opportunity to comply. The court found that she did not include a version showing the changes. It also noted that her proposed order sought relief beyond permission to amend, including requests concerning discovery, reasonable accommodation, and additional time to amend. The court denied the motion because she did not follow the applicable procedural rules.

Motion to Reconsider

The court denied Kasso’s motion to reconsider the order allowing the defendants additional time to respond to her amendment motion. Under the applicable local rule, a party generally must first obtain permission to file a motion for reconsideration by submitting a letter showing compelling circumstances. Kasso did not first submit that request.

The court stated that this procedural defect alone supported denial. It also considered the substance of the motion and found that Kasso had not shown a clear legal or factual error or newly discovered evidence. Instead, the court concluded that she was asking it to reassess the factors supporting the defendants’ late filing, which the court declined to do. The court also did not consider Kasso’s reply because she had not received permission to file one in support of a nondispositive motion.

Stay of Discovery and Motion to Compel

The defendants asked the court to stay, or pause, discovery until the court decided their pending motion for judgment on the pleadings. Kasso filed a motion to compel, asking the court to order the defendants to respond to discovery requests.

The court found good cause to stay discovery. It conducted a limited review of the pending motion and concluded that the defendants had shown more than a mere possibility of success on several arguments, including that many claims may have been filed too late, that one claim may lack required administrative exhaustion, and that other claims may not be adequately pleaded or may not be legally valid. The court noted that an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission right-to-sue notice for one charge was issued on April 25, 2022, while Kasso filed the lawsuit on September 8, 2023. It also noted that claims based on events before November 28, 2018, appeared potentially barred by the 300-day administrative filing period.

The court emphasized that the defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings was not before it for decision and that it expressed no opinion on the motion’s ultimate merits. It found that continuing discovery could impose unnecessary costs on the defendants, that Kasso had not explained how a temporary delay would prejudice her, and that a stay could conserve judicial resources because the pending motion might resolve most or all of the claims.

The court therefore granted the defendants’ motion to stay discovery. Because discovery was stayed, it denied Kasso’s motion to compel without prejudice, meaning the request could be brought again if discovery resumed and remained appropriate. The court stated that discovery would resume if the defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings were denied.

Other Orders and Disposition

The court denied the defendants’ proposed protective order and electronic-discovery order without prejudice because discovery was stayed. It left prior consistent orders in force. The order also warned that failure to comply with the order or prior consistent orders could lead to remedies or sanctions, including costs, fines, attorney’s fees, limits on evidence, striking pleadings, dismissal with prejudice, or default judgment.

The order did not decide the ultimate merits of Kasso’s discrimination allegations or the defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings. It resolved amendment, reconsideration, discovery, and related case-management matters.