Holmes v. Minnesota DOC

Background

Stephan Nicholas Holmes filed a self-described motion asking the court to order defendants to arrange depositions. He had asked to depose defendants Cassandra Halfacre, Joan Wolff, and Kirsten Grunewaldt, as well as non-party witnesses Darin Haugland and Luke DeHaan. He also requested documents. Defendants responded to the document request but did not respond to his requests to schedule depositions.

In an order dated July 15, 2025, the court ruled that the deposition motion was moot and explained that Holmes faced significant obstacles to obtaining the testimony he sought. Holmes later filed a reply. Because replies are not allowed for non-dispositive motions, the court interpreted the filing liberally, considering Holmes’s pro se status, and treated it as a motion to reconsider the July 15 order.

Court’s analysis

The court found no basis to vacate the July 15 order. It explained that Holmes would need to follow the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to conduct oral depositions, including serving appropriate notices and arranging for a court reporter or other authorized officer. Holmes was also responsible for the costs of recording the depositions. His status as a party allowed to proceed without paying the filing fee all at once did not entitle him to have discovery costs paid in advance or shifted to defendants or the court.

The court also noted that there was no indication Holmes had served the required notices or arranged for court-reporting services. The court stated that defense counsel was corresponding with him about scheduling the depositions. If Holmes complied with the procedural requirements, and the court sustained no valid objection, the court expected the Minnesota Department of Corrections to provide access to a room and the technology needed for the depositions because it controlled the facility where Holmes was incarcerated. But the court said that ordering defendants to facilitate the depositions before those steps were completed would be premature.

Ruling

Judge Dulce J. Foster DENIED Holmes’s motion to reconsider the July 15 order. The opinion did not decide whether any particular deposition would ultimately occur or resolve any possible objection based on relevance, proportionality, privilege, or another applicable ground. It also stated that any request for more time to complete discovery would require a separate motion.

Related procedural point

The order concerns discovery—the process of obtaining information and testimony for a lawsuit—and a request to reconsider an earlier discovery ruling. It does not decide the underlying claims in the case.