Larson v. Minnesota Department of Human Services

Background

The court considered two requests filed by Hollis Larson: a Motion to Compel and a Motion for Fee Waiver. Larson asked the court to require defendants to provide all discovery documents in copyable, searchable PDF format, place them in his “Legal Documents” folder, and use a particular return address on case-related mail so that the mail would remain “privileged.” He also asked the court to waive any electronic filing fees for exhibits and require defendants to help him file electronically.

Motion to Compel

The court denied the request concerning discovery documents. Because the parties had not agreed on a protocol for producing electronically stored information, the court applied the minimum requirements of Rule 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Those requirements generally call for documents to be produced in a reasonably usable form. The court explained that PDF files generally meet that standard. It also noted that documents should not be made less searchable than they were in their original form, but defendants stated that they had not reduced the searchability of the documents they produced. The court therefore denied Larson’s request to require defendants to make the documents more searchable than they were in their original format.

The court also denied Larson’s request for special handling of defendants’ mail. It stated that Larson did not have an attorney-client relationship with defendants or their lawyers, so their communications with him were not attorney-client privileged communications.

Motion for Fee Waiver and Filing Assistance

The court denied the request for a fee waiver because Larson was not required to file electronically and because the District of Minnesota charged no fees for filing electronic or paper motions or exhibits in a pending case. The court said there were therefore no fees to waive.

The court also denied Larson’s request that defendants help him file electronically. Because electronic filing was not mandatory for him, the court would not require defendants to assist with that optional procedure or reduce his printing and postage costs.

Meet-and-Confer Requirement

The court additionally stated that Larson had not met and conferred with defendants’ attorneys before filing the motions, as required by Local Rule 7.1 and earlier court orders. The court reminded Larson that, before filing a motion, a party must try to resolve the dispute with the opposing party and file a statement describing that effort. The court warned that continued failure to follow this requirement could result in denial of future motions.

Disposition

Magistrate Judge Dulce J. Foster ordered that Larson’s Motion to Compel and Motion for Fee Waiver were both DENIED.