Ivey v. MSOP
- Donovan Frank
- 0:12-cv-00030
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 11
In Ivey v. MSOP, Judge Leung partly granted discovery motions, ordered supervised access to materials, and denied Ivey’s confidentiality challenge without prejudice.
Christopher Ivey and the defendant MSOP officials were affected. Ivey received controlled access to disputed discovery, while the defendants received protections for security-sensitive and personally identifying information.
What happened
In Ivey v. MSOP, Christopher Ivey, who represented himself, sought documents and videos related to his civil-rights claims against MSOP and several staff members. The defendants withheld some materials because they contained security information or private information about other people.
The court ruled that the requested information was relevant and that Minnesota’s data-practices law did not by itself block discovery in federal court. But it recognized security and privacy concerns, so Ivey could review the disputed materials only through an MSOP representative, could not take them away, and could not keep notes separate from the materials. The court also allowed limited redactions and confidentiality designations.
Judge Leung granted in part and denied in part Ivey’s motion to compel, denied without prejudice Ivey’s motion to deny confidential designations, and granted in part and denied in part the defendants’ motion for a protective order. The order required production of outstanding discovery within 30 days under these conditions and issued a modified standard protective order.
The detailed version
- Ivey v. MSOP · No. 0:12-cv-00030
- Donovan Frank
- July 30, 2019
Background
Christopher Ivey filed an 18-count complaint against the Minnesota Sex Offender Program and several staff members, alleging civil-rights violations after a November 2011 incident in his room. Earlier motion practice reduced the case to excessive-force claims against Daniel Williams, Michael Glavan, William Gullickson, Scott Giannini, Tara Halverson, and Matthew Dahl; a battery claim against Glavan; and Fourth Amendment claims against Kevin Dreher, Dahl, and Gullickson.
Ivey moved to compel discovery and to prevent the defendants from marking certain materials confidential. The defendants moved for a protective order. The disputed materials included information about handcuff use, detention and restraint techniques, MSOP training and security procedures, reports involving other individuals, and video footage of the incident. The defendants had produced more than 500 pages but withheld materials they characterized as non-public security data under the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act.
Discovery analysis
The court applied Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26, which permits discovery of nonprivileged information relevant to a claim or defense and proportional to the case’s needs. It found that information about MSOP security policies, procedures, training, and prior use-of-force or handcuffing incidents was relevant to Ivey’s excessive-force claims. The court also found relevant documents involving other individuals because those materials could inform the policies and procedures at issue and could include prior complaints.
The court rejected the defendants’ argument that the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act independently prevented discovery. It held that the Act did not override the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and did not provide a basis for objecting to discovery in federal court. The court nevertheless considered the defendants’ security and privacy concerns under its authority to manage discovery and issue protective orders.
Rulings and conditions
The court concluded that the defendants had identified genuine institutional-security concerns. It ordered that Ivey receive reasonable and timely access to disputed documents and videos through an MSOP representative rather than keep the materials in his possession. Ivey could review the materials in the representative’s presence but could not remove them. Any notes he made about the materials also had to remain with the documents. The representative could not discuss the materials’ contents with the defendants or their lawyers.
The court allowed the defendants to redact personal identifying information about other MSOP patients and sensitive security information, including passwords, security codes, and alarm locations. It authorized confidentiality designations under a modified version of the District of Minnesota’s standard protective order, but it rejected the defendants’ proposed order. The court found the proposed order improper to the extent it would permit unilateral withholding based on the Minnesota Act or allow the defendants to use information that Ivey could not review and address.
The court denied without prejudice Ivey’s motion to prohibit confidentiality designations because no protective order had yet been issued and no documents had yet been designated confidential. The court noted that the protective order would provide a process for challenging later designations. The court expressly did not decide whether the overall scope or time period of Ivey’s discovery requests was proportional to the needs of the case.
Disposition
The order states that Ivey’s motion to compel discovery was granted in part and denied in part. The defendants’ motion for a protective order was granted in part and denied in part, and the court ordered a modified standard protective order. Ivey’s motion to deny confidential designation was denied without prejudice. The order also warned that violating the order could lead to remedies or sanctions, including costs, fines, attorney’s fees, limits on evidence, striking pleadings, dismissal with prejudice, or default judgment.
Read the full 11-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.