Kemonou v. Minnesota Department of Revenue

Background

Plaintiff Richard S. Kemonou, representing himself (i.e., proceeding pro se), filed this action against the Minnesota Department of Revenue (MnDOR) on October 25, 2024. The opinion does not describe the underlying substantive claims in detail.

MnDOR served its first set of written discovery on Kemonou on November 7, 2025. Kemonou responded on December 4, 2025, but MnDOR identified deficiencies the same day and requested supplemental responses. Kemonou provided some additional information, but MnDOR concluded deficiencies remained. On February 11, 2026, MnDOR sent a formal deficiency letter outlining numerous remaining gaps, particularly relating to damages. When Kemonou refused to supplement his responses, MnDOR filed a Motion to Compel, which the court granted. The court's April 7, 2026 order directed Kemonou to produce discovery responsive to multiple requests.

By July 23, 2026, MnDOR concluded that Kemonou had not complied with that order and moved for sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37 (the rule governing sanctions for discovery violations). MnDOR sought three forms of relief: (1) barring Kemonou from presenting evidence of emotional distress damages; (2) a finding that Kemonou had fully mitigated his damages as of January 1, 2025; and (3) an award of attorneys' fees incurred in bringing the Motion to Compel and the Motion for Sanctions. Oral argument was held on July 7, 2026. Kemonou filed a response in opposition.

The two main categories of documents at issue were treatment records from a provider in Benin and Kemonou's 2025 tax return — both of which the court had previously ruled were discoverable.

Legal Standards

Rule 37(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure authorizes a range of sanctions for parties who violate discovery orders, including the payment of reasonable expenses and attorneys' fees. Courts also possess inherent authority to sanction conduct that abuses the judicial process. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals has established that district courts have broad discretion in choosing sanctions. The court also cited settled Eighth Circuit authority that pro se litigants — those representing themselves without a lawyer — are not excused from complying with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, local court rules, or court orders.

Analysis and Ruling

Magistrate Judge Docherty denied the motion for three reasons.

Reason 1: Summary Judgment Posture

Both parties had already submitted summary judgment briefing, with argument scheduled before District Judge Blackwell (the judge assigned to oversee the case) in November 2026. The court observed that MnDOR had been able to develop a strong summary judgment case based on the discovery it had received, making further discovery litigation unhelpful at this stage. The court noted, however, that if Kemonou's claims survive summary judgment, there may be substantial grounds for the evidentiary sanctions MnDOR seeks, given what the court described as Kemonou's documented vexatiousness and general resistance to following court rules.

Reason 2: Trial Management Belongs to the District Judge

Much of the relief MnDOR sought — such as jury instructions or limitations on evidence at trial — is more appropriately addressed by District Judge Blackwell through pretrial motion practice if the case proceeds to trial. The magistrate judge declined to make rulings about how another judge would manage a trial.

Reason 3: Disputed Existence of Documents

The court declined to sanction Kemonou for failing to produce documents whose existence is in question, citing the principle that a party cannot be compelled to produce what it does not have. Kemonou represented that the treatment records MnDOR sought do not exist beyond what he had already provided, and that his 2025 tax return had not yet been filed because he had been granted an IRS extension until October 15, 2026. The court accepted these representations at face value, as required under applicable precedent. The court did, however, order Kemonou to provide his 2025 tax return to MnDOR as soon as it is filed.

The court also declined to issue anticipatory sanctions based on what Kemonou might do in the future with documents not produced in discovery, noting that any such issue would be better handled by Judge Blackwell as the judge overseeing trial.

Disposition

The court denied MnDOR's Motion for Sanctions (Dkt. No. 149) and Request for Attorneys' Fees (Dkt. No. 171) without prejudice. A denial without prejudice means MnDOR is not permanently barred from raising these issues again.