Kasso v. City of Minneapolis and City of Minneapolis Police Department
- Katherine Menendez
- 0:23-cv-02782
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 9
In Kasso v. City of Minneapolis, Judge Menendez overruled the plaintiff's objections and dismissed her disability-discrimination claim with prejudice as a sanction for repeatedly defying court orders to produce discovery.
Current or former employees who bring workplace discrimination claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act, particularly those involved in contentious discovery disputes; parties and litigants who may face escalating sanctions — including claim dismissal — for repeated noncompliance with court-ordered discovery obligations; and individuals who subpoena third-party witnesses in federal litigation.
What happened
In Kasso v. City of Minneapolis (No. 23-cv-2782), Leila Kasso sued the City of Minneapolis and its Police Department, alleging mistreatment by her former employer. The case has been marked by extensive discovery disputes. At issue in this ruling were her objections to a magistrate judge's order that quashed two subpoenas she served on city employees and, more significantly, dismissed her Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) claim as a sanction for refusing to comply with multiple court orders requiring her to turn over documents.
Magistrate Judge Douglas L. Micko had previously ordered Ms. Kasso twice to produce certain documents — first at a November 2025 hearing and again in a February 2026 sanctions order — but she failed to comply both times. When she did produce some documents, she submitted self-created, improperly narrowed authorization forms and improperly redacted records. Judge Micko had already imposed a monetary sanction of nearly $5,000 for her earlier noncompliance, but she still did not fully comply. He then granted the city's motion to compel and, as a sanction, dismissed her ADA claim. He also quashed two subpoenas she had served on city employees Casey Carl and Dushani Dye, finding they failed standards requiring discovery to be relevant, proportionate, and not unduly burdensome.
Judge Katherine M. Menendez reviewed the dismissal of the ADA claim from scratch (called "de novo" review) and the subpoena ruling under a more deferential standard. She agreed with both conclusions. She found that Ms. Kasso had willfully violated two separate court orders, that the city was prejudiced by having to file repeated motions just to receive documents it was already entitled to, and that a lesser sanction had already been tried and failed. She overruled Ms. Kasso's objections, accepted the magistrate judge's order in full, and dismissed Ms. Kasso's ADA claim with prejudice.
The detailed version
- Kasso v. City of Minneapolis and City of Minneapolis Police Department · No. 0:23-cv-02782
- Katherine Menendez
- July 15, 2026
Background
Leila Kasso sued the City of Minneapolis and the City of Minneapolis Police Department (together, "the City"), alleging mistreatment by her former employer. The litigation has lasted nearly three years and has been marked by numerous discovery disputes, including more than half a dozen discovery motions and at least one prior sanctions order.
The immediate dispute arose from two sets of rulings by United States Magistrate Judge Douglas L. Micko in a May 11, 2026 order: (1) quashing subpoenas Ms. Kasso had served on Minneapolis City Clerk Casey Carl and Minneapolis Chief Financial Officer Dushani Dye, and (2) granting in part and denying in part the City's motion to compel and for sanctions, including dismissal of Ms. Kasso's ADA claim. Ms. Kasso filed timely objections, the City responded, and Ms. Kasso replied with leave of court.
Legal Standards
District courts review magistrate judge orders on dispositive issues (those that can end a claim or case) de novo — meaning entirely fresh, without deference to the magistrate's conclusions. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). For nondispositive issues, the standard is whether the order is "clearly erroneous or contrary to law," a standard the court described as "extremely deferential." Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a).
Terminal Sanction: Dismissal of the ADA Claim
The parties agreed, and the court confirmed, that dismissal of a claim is a dispositive ruling, so Judge Menendez reviewed this issue de novo.
Governing Legal Framework
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(b)(2) authorizes courts to sanction parties who violate discovery orders, up to and including dismissal of claims or the entire action. Dismissal is disfavored and may be imposed only when three elements are met (from Schoffstall v. Henderson, 223 F.3d 818 (8th Cir. 2000)): 1. A court order compelling discovery existed; 2. The party willfully violated that order; and 3. The opposing party was prejudiced.
Additionally, before imposing dismissal, a court must consider whether a less extreme sanction would suffice — unless the failure was deliberate or in bad faith. However, the law does not require the least severe sanction; rather, courts may impose the most appropriate one for the circumstances.
Application of the Three Elements
Element 1 — Existence of compulsion orders
Two separate orders required Ms. Kasso to produce the contested documents: (a) Judge Micko's oral order at a November 4, 2025 hearing, setting a production deadline of November 26, 2025; and (b) Judge Micko's February 19, 2026 written sanctions order, setting a new production deadline of February 26, 2026.
Element 2 — Willful violation
Ms. Kasso failed to comply with the November deadline entirely. She provided incomplete production by the February deadline: she submitted self-created and improperly narrowed authorization releases, along with redacted documents from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and Minnesota Department of Human Rights (MDHR). She argued that the EEOC and MDHR redacted the documents themselves — not her. Judge Menendez rejected this explanation, noting that Ms. Kasso raised this contention for the first time in briefing on the second motion to compel, never mentioning it during the November hearing, her opposition to the first sanctions motion, or her objections to the first sanctions order. The court found it would have expected her to raise such a complication at the time of production. The court concluded her violations were willful.
Element 3 — Prejudice to the City
The City was forced to file multiple motions to compel and motions for sanctions simply to receive documents already ordered produced. Even at the time of the May 11 Order, complete production had still not occurred, impairing the City's ability to defend against Ms. Kasso's claims.
Proportionality of the Sanction
Judge Menendez found dismissal of the ADA claim — rather than a lesser sanction — appropriate for two reasons. First, a lesser sanction had already been tried: the nearly $5,000 monetary sanction imposed in February 2026 did not bring Ms. Kasso into compliance. Second, the contested discovery was most directly connected to the ADA disability allegations, making dismissal of that specific claim proportionate rather than dismissal of the entire case.
The court overruled Ms. Kasso's objections on this issue, accepted the May 11 Order, and dismissed Ms. Kasso's ADA claim with prejudice.
Motion to Quash Subpoenas
Because quashing a subpoena is a nondispositive discovery matter, the court applied the deferential "clearly erroneous or contrary to law" standard.
Ms. Kasso served subpoenas on Casey Carl and Dushani Dye. Judge Micko quashed both subpoenas, finding they failed Rule 26's relevance and proportionality requirements and were unduly burdensome. (The motion to quash was denied insofar as it sought a broader protective order.)
Ms. Kasso argued that Judge Micko's explanation was legally insufficient for want of detailed factual findings. Judge Menendez found Ms. Kasso cited no legal authority requiring the level of analytical detail she demanded and could find no such authority independently. The court also rejected Ms. Kasso's implicit argument that the City lacked standing to seek to quash the subpoenas — noting that the actual movants to quash were Carl and Dye themselves, the direct recipients of the subpoenas, who plainly had the ability to challenge them under Rule 45(d)(3).
The court overruled the objections and accepted the May 11 Order on the subpoenas as well.
Disposition
The court entered three formal orders:
- Ms. Kasso's objections (Dkt. 315) are overruled.
- Judge Micko's May 11 Order (Dkt. 303) — granting in part and denying in part the City's Motion to Quash Subpoenas and for a Protective Order (Dkt. 263) and Motion to Compel and for Sanctions (Dkt. 276) — is accepted.
- Ms. Kasso's ADA claim is dismissed with prejudice.
Read the full 9-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.