Murphy v. Minnesota Department of Human Services

Background

The defendant appealed Magistrate Judge Becky R. Thorson’s October 19, 2018 order. That order denied the defendant’s request for permission to file a motion for reconsideration of Judge Thorson’s August 29, 2018 order.

The August 29 order had denied the defendant’s motion to compel the deposition of an additional witness with knowledge of the plaintiffs’ requested relief. Before the district court ruled on the defendant’s objection to that order, the defendant asked Judge Thorson for permission to seek reconsideration. Judge Thorson denied that request. On November 9, 2018, this Court separately affirmed the August 29 order.

Arguments and Legal Standard

Under the applicable local rule, a party must show “compelling circumstances” to obtain permission to file a motion for reconsideration. Reconsideration is not meant to relitigate old issues and is generally reserved for extraordinary circumstances.

The defendant argued that compelling circumstances existed because the plaintiffs’ expert could not answer all of the defendant’s specific questions. According to the defendant, this showed that the reasoning behind the August 29 order was incorrect. The district court reviewed Judge Thorson’s order under the deferential standard for reviewing a magistrate judge’s nondispositive order. Under that standard, the district court may modify or set aside the order if it is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. A decision is clearly erroneous when the reviewing court is firmly convinced that a mistake was made; a decision is contrary to law when it fails to apply or misapplies relevant law or procedural rules.

Court’s Analysis

The district court concluded that Judge Thorson’s decision to deny the additional deposition was based on more than the possibility that the defendant could obtain information through expert reports and expert testimony. The court relied on the reasons discussed in its November 9 order, including that not every named plaintiff would know information obtained from others, that the defendant had not deposed several people who had assisted with the plaintiffs’ collective answers, and that answers could include facts known to the attorneys but not necessarily to the named plaintiffs.

The court also concluded that the defendant’s inability to obtain answers to all of her specific questions from the plaintiffs’ expert was not a compelling circumstance justifying reconsideration. Judge Thorson could properly have denied the request for an additional deposition based on any of the other factors she considered, regardless of whether the defendant had access to further discovery through expert reports and testimony.

Disposition

Judge Donovan W. Frank found that Judge Thorson’s October 19, 2018 order was neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law. The court denied the defendant’s appeal and affirmed that order. The final order states that the defendant’s appeal was “OVERRULED” and that Judge Thorson’s order denying permission to file a motion for reconsideration was “AFFIRMED.”