Ivy v. Bolin

Background

Plaintiff Rashad Ramon Ivy is a Minnesota prisoner currently housed at the Minnesota Correctional Facility in Rush City. He filed this lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 — a federal statute allowing individuals to sue state or local government officials who violate their constitutional rights — against multiple Minnesota Department of Corrections (DOC) employees in both their individual and official capacities. Mr. Ivy alleges that defendants denied him contact and video visits with his children for over eight years during his incarceration. He is suing several individuals who serve or served on the Abuse Review Committee (ARC), the body responsible for determining restrictions on visitation privileges.

Mr. Ivy was convicted in 2016 on ten counts including sex trafficking, domestic assault by strangulation, solicitation to practice prostitution, and criminal sexual conduct. His claims allege violations of his First Amendment, Eighth Amendment, and substantive due process rights in connection with the denial of visitation.

The Discovery Dispute

Mr. Ivy served discovery requests on defendants on or about April 4, 2025. Defendants responded on May 5, 2025, producing 245 pages of documents. After several months of meet-and-confer discussions, and with the August 1, 2025 non-dispositive motion deadline approaching, Mr. Ivy filed a motion to compel on July 30, 2025. The next day, defendants sent a supplemental letter and produced an additional 94 pages of documents, resolving several disputes.

Mooted Disputes

Defendants originally withheld some documents based on the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, a Minnesota statute governing Ombudsperson disclosures, and a Minnesota statute governing confidential sources in presentence investigation reports (PSIs). Defendants withdrew most of those objections in their July 31 letter. Defendants' supplemental production also resolved disputes over Requests for Production 2, 5, 8, and 11 and Interrogatories 9 and 10.

Rulings on Remaining Disputes

PSI (Pre-Sentencing Investigation Report)

Defendants objected to producing Mr. Ivy's PSI — a document typically prepared by a probation officer after conviction but before sentencing — citing Minnesota Stat. § 609.115, subd. 6. The court rejected this objection on two grounds: (1) the cited statute actually requires that a PSI be provided to the defendant or defense counsel at no cost; and (2) state law regulating disclosure of non-privileged information has no binding force in federal court. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b), the PSI is relevant and must be produced.

However, the court recognized defendants' legitimate concern that other prisoners might access and misuse victim information. The court permitted defendants to redact: names, specific dates of birth, addresses, and phone numbers of crime victims; and information identifying co-defendants and the statuses of their pleas. Defendants must replace victim names with unique identifiers and leave birth years unredacted, because victim ages are relevant to the claims at issue.

Request for Production 1

Defendants raised a boilerplate privilege and work product objection but produced documents subject to that objection, stating the objection was raised "out of an abundance of caution." The court found Mr. Ivy's complaint well-founded: if defendants withheld any document based on privilege or work product, they were required under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(5)(A) to describe withheld documents in a privilege log. The court ordered defendants to produce such a log, excluding communications with litigation counsel. If no documents were withheld, defendants must confirm that in writing.

Requests for Production 6, 9, and 10

These requests sought documents about how other DOC inmates were treated compared to Mr. Ivy based on evidence of crimes involving minors. The court denied these requests because Mr. Ivy's complaint does not assert an equal protection or unequal treatment claim, making comparative treatment of other prisoners irrelevant. The court also found these requests would invade other prisoners' privacy interests and disproportionately expand the scope of litigation.

Request for Production 7

Mr. Ivy requested all copies of his criminal complaint. Defendants produced them. Mr. Ivy objected because some documents contained information he believed was erroneous and later amended. The court denied this request, noting that defendants had provided exactly what was asked and that the accuracy of the documents is a separate matter from the adequacy of the discovery response.

Interrogatory 1

Mr. Ivy sought names, personal information (including marital status, home address, and date of birth), and relationship information for defendants and all ARC members. Defendants provided names, titles, and business addresses but refused to disclose personal information, citing safety and security concerns including risks of staff intimidation and harassment.

The court ordered defendants to supplement their response to include Defendant Kate Rudesill's (formerly Kate Hoffer) full name, title, and business address, as defendants provided no reason for her omission. However, the court declined to compel disclosure of relationship, marital status, or personal home information, finding that information only marginally relevant to claims about whether visitation restrictions unconstitutionally infringed on Mr. Ivy's rights, and that the security risk of disclosure outweighed that marginal relevance. The court also declined to compel information about ARC members beyond the years 2020, 2021, and 2024 — the years in which Mr. Ivy actually appealed his visitation restrictions.

Interrogatories 2 and 15

Both interrogatories were found too vague to compel a response. Interrogatory 2, seeking the identities of "Defendants A, B, and C," was insufficiently specific even when read together with Mr. Ivy's supporting memorandum. Interrogatory 15 was described as impossible to decipher from its text; to the extent Mr. Ivy sought an admission, the court noted he should have filed a request for admission rather than an interrogatory.

Interrogatory 11

This interrogatory asked defendants to state whether Mr. Ivy had been convicted of any crime involving a minor within the last ten years and to describe the crime and related proceedings. Defendants objected as vague but directed Mr. Ivy to prior responses and documents. The court found the interrogatory not so vague as to be improper, and found that defendants' existing responses did not clearly answer whether any conviction involved harm to a minor — a fact directly relevant to the defendants' basis for imposing visitation restrictions. The court rejected defendants' argument that Mr. Ivy could find this information himself, citing authority that an interrogatory is generally proper even if the information is equally available to both parties. Defendants were ordered to supplement their response.

Interrogatory 12 and Request for Admission 6

Interrogatory 12 sought the identity of DOC staff with authority to review grievance appeals of visiting restrictions. Request for Admission 6 asked defendants to admit that Mr. Ivy had no criminal charges or convictions involving a minor "at intake" supporting the restrictions. Defendants objected to both as vague but provided substantive responses. Mr. Ivy argued the responses were false. The court denied these requests, finding Mr. Ivy had not shown the responses were incomplete, and noting that the truthfulness of responses is a factual question for trial rather than grounds for a motion to compel.

Interrogatory 14

This interrogatory asked whether Mr. Ivy's sentence expiration date changed upon receipt of an Amended Warrant of Commitment, and — if the answer to Interrogatory 13 was "yes" — sought additional information about when the DOC received that document and who discussed it with his public defender. Because defendants objected to Interrogatory 13 (finding it irrelevant to the visitation claims) and did not answer "yes," the condition for providing the additional information in Interrogatory 14 was never triggered. The court agreed the sentence calculation information has little, if any, relevance to the visitation restriction claims, and denied the motion as to Interrogatory 14.

Request for Admission 1

Mr. Ivy asked defendants to admit to the authenticity of several documents. Defendants objected as vague and stated they lacked sufficient information to assess genuineness. The court held that defendants are not obligated to authenticate documents they did not create, send, or receive, but must make a good faith inquiry before refusing to admit authenticity for documents they did create, send, or receive — and cannot refuse simply because a document may have been altered. The court ordered defendants to re-review the listed documents and conduct a thorough inquiry.

Request for Admission 2

This request asked defendants to admit to Mr. Ivy's interpretation of an Offender Kite Form (a prisoner written request form). The court agreed the request was overly vague and found defendants' answer that the document "speaks for itself" adequately responded. The motion was denied as to this request.

Disposition

The court granted in part and denied in part Mr. Ivy's motion. Defendants were ordered to: (1) produce the PSI with specified redactions; (2) produce a privilege log for Request for Production 1 or confirm no documents were withheld; (3) supplement Interrogatory 1 with Defendant Rudesill's information; (4) supplement Interrogatory 11 to identify convictions involving harm to a minor; and (5) carefully review and respond to the documents listed in Request for Admission 1. All other requests in the motion were denied.