Murphy v. Minnesota Department of Human Services

Background

The defendant, Emily Johnson Piper in her capacity as Commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Human Services, appealed Magistrate Judge Becky R. Thorson’s August 29, 2018 order on the defendant’s motions to compel. A motion to compel asks the court to require another party to provide discovery. The combined motions raised seven issues, although the request for spoliation sanctions was withdrawn before the magistrate judge ruled on it. The six remaining issues concerned:

The district court could modify or set aside the magistrate judge’s discovery order only if it was clearly erroneous or contrary to law. This is a highly deferential standard. A ruling is clearly erroneous when the reviewing court is firmly convinced that a mistake occurred despite supporting evidence. A ruling is contrary to law when it fails to apply, or misapplies, the relevant law or procedural rules.

Rulings on the Discovery Issues

Additional deposition. The magistrate judge denied the request for another witness to be deposed about the plaintiffs’ answers to Interrogatory Nos. 5, 17, 20, and 22–26. The district court agreed. It concluded that the named plaintiffs and their guardians answered basic questions about the requested relief, reasonably referred to their attorneys when appropriate, and satisfied the verification requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33. The court also agreed that further discovery through expert reports and expert depositions reduced the need for another witness deposition.

Supplemental-needs-trust documents. The magistrate judge denied the defendant access to documents concerning Tenner Murphy’s special-needs trusts based on the common-interest doctrine. That doctrine can protect communications shared among parties with a common legal, factual, or strategic interest. The district court held that the magistrate judge correctly applied the doctrine because the common interest involved creating a trust to benefit Tenner Murphy and support his well-being in light of his disability.

Documents reviewed before depositions. The magistrate judge upheld the plaintiffs’ work-product objection to questions about which documents their witnesses reviewed before their depositions. Work product is material prepared in connection with litigation, and opinion work product—an attorney’s selection or compilation of materials—receives especially strong protection. The district court agreed that the selection of documents was protected and that the defendant had not laid the foundation required by Federal Rule of Evidence 612 to obtain the information.

Deposition errata sheets. The magistrate judge allowed substantive changes made by Bottelson and Swanson in their deposition errata sheets. An errata sheet is a witness’s written list of corrections or changes to deposition testimony. Applying a flexible approach, the magistrate judge found sufficient justification because the plaintiffs explained that cognitive delays contributed to confusion and forgetfulness during the depositions. The original testimony and errata sheets remained available for use at trial, and the defendant received two additional deposition hours with each witness. The district court affirmed that decision.

Sanctions. The magistrate judge denied the defendant’s request for sanctions based on an alleged willful violation of an earlier order concerning Interrogatory No. 22. The district court agreed that the plaintiffs’ supplemental response was sufficient, that the collective response was not sanctionable, and that the defendant had not shown a violation of the earlier order or prejudice.

Confidentiality designations. The magistrate judge denied relief concerning financial and medical documents because the plaintiffs had met their burden under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 and the defendant had previously stipulated to confidentiality designations within the rule’s protections. For a third category of documents marked confidential without an apparent reason, the magistrate judge found that all but two were not confidential and granted the request to remove the designations for those documents. The request was otherwise denied without prejudice. The district court held that this ruling also covered the defendant’s challenge to confidentiality designations on depositions and that the defendant could renew challenges when the materials were submitted in future court filings.

Disposition

Judge Donovan W. Frank concluded that Magistrate Judge Thorson’s order was neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law. The court denied the defendant’s appeal, overruled the defendant’s objections, and affirmed Magistrate Judge Thorson’s August 29, 2018 order in all respects.