Rassier v. Sanner

Background

Daniel A. Rassier and Rita Rassier appealed Magistrate Judge Leo I. Brisbois’s January 7, 2019 order. That order denied their motion to take the deposition of Danny J. Heinrich, an incarcerated federal inmate.

The plaintiffs wanted to ask Heinrich about vehicles he owned at the time of the Wetterling abduction and later investigation, his interactions with law enforcement during the investigation, and whether he had a mole above his left eyebrow. The plaintiffs’ remaining claims against the defendants were for First Amendment retaliation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and defamation arising from the labeling of Daniel Rassier as a person of interest.

Parties’ Positions and Review Standard

The magistrate judge concluded that the plaintiffs had not made the required showing that Heinrich’s deposition and the information sought would be relevant to their remaining claims. The judge specifically found that the plaintiffs had not shown how Heinrich could provide information about John Sanner’s motivation in labeling Daniel Rassier a person of interest, or how Heinrich’s mole, vehicle ownership, or knowledge of later investigative actions by law enforcement related to the claims.

The plaintiffs argued that Heinrich could provide relevant testimony beyond evidence about the defendants’ motives, including information that could establish or undermine the defendants’ motives when they changed investigation theories and targeted Daniel Rassier. The defendants opposed the appeal.

The district court explained that it could modify or set aside the magistrate judge’s order only if the order was clearly erroneous or contrary to law. This is a highly deferential standard of review.

Ruling

Judge Donovan W. Frank concluded that the plaintiffs had not shown that Magistrate Judge Brisbois’s order was clearly erroneous or contrary to law. The court emphasized that the plaintiffs acknowledged having photographs showing Heinrich’s mole, making a deposition unnecessary for that purpose.

The court also noted the plaintiffs’ statement that the Federal Bureau of Investigation had not produced documents concerning the Wetterling investigation. The court said it assumed counsel would inform the court if the FBI continued refusing to produce documents and offered to review those documents privately to help resolve discovery matters.

The court denied the plaintiffs’ appeal and affirmed Magistrate Judge Brisbois’s January 7, 2019 order in all respects. The order stated that the appeal was overruled and that the magistrate judge’s order was affirmed.