Benson v. Piper

Background

Michael D. Benson, a self-represented plaintiff, is civilly committed to the Minnesota Sex Offender Program. The defendants are state employees involved with that program. The court considered two motions: defendants’ motion for a protective order governing discovery and Benson’s motion for leave to amend his amended complaint.

Protective-order motion

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 permits discovery of relevant, nonprivileged information that is proportional to the needs of the case. It also allows a court to issue a protective order for good cause to prevent annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense. The party requesting protection bears the burden of showing that a protective order is necessary.

Defendants argued that broad categories of information—including information about other individuals, personnel information, and security information—were protected by the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. They sought restrictions on Benson’s access to those categories and proposed that security information, including Minnesota Sex Offender Program security video, generally not be provided directly to him.

The court rejected the idea that the Minnesota law independently controls discovery in this federal lawsuit. It explained that federal discovery rules govern and that the state law does not define what is discoverable or create an independent evidentiary privilege. The court recognized that sensitive information at a secure treatment facility could justify particular limits, but found that defendants had not provided enough context for the court to weigh relevance, proportionality, confidentiality, and competing interests. The court would not issue a broad protective order allowing defendants to withhold discovery as they chose.

The court nevertheless stated that it would issue a protective order consistent with the District of Minnesota’s standard form. Information marked confidential could be used only in this action and could not be disclosed except as the protective order allowed. Benson could not disclose confidential information to another person civilly committed to the Minnesota Sex Offender Program. The court also said it would issue an amended pretrial scheduling order, including limited extensions for certain discovery and nondispositive motions.

The order therefore granted in part and denied in part defendants’ motion for a protective order.

Motion to amend

Benson sought to add a First Amendment claim based on a theory that refusing to wear an identification badge was a symbolic protest. He also sought to add defendants and factual allegations. The proposed badge claim concerned a policy requiring a badge displaying his photograph, full name, a bar code, and the words “Minnesota Sex Offender Program.”

A court may deny leave to amend when the proposed amendment would be futile, unduly delayed, brought in bad faith, or unfairly prejudice the opposing party. An amendment is futile when the proposed claim could not survive a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.

The court concluded that the proposed First Amendment claim was futile. Benson relied in part on Minnesota Statutes § 245G.15, subdivision 3, concerning photographs used to enhance supervision in certain treatment facilities. But even assuming that provision applied to him and that the badge policy violated it, the court held that an alleged violation of state law alone cannot support a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which provides a remedy for deprivation of federal rights by a person acting under state law.

The court also held that the proposed First Amendment claim failed under both the compelled-speech and symbolic-protest theories. It relied on the reasons given when Benson’s earlier badge-related First Amendment claim was rejected, including the conclusion that the words “Minnesota Sex Offender Program” identified the facility rather than expressing a message or viewpoint. The court found that the new allegations did not change the fundamental facts supporting the earlier claim.

The court separately rejected Benson’s other proposed amendments. The proposed complaint substantially rewrote the existing complaint after discovery had closed, which would create a moving target, require additional discovery, and prejudice defendants. Some proposed allegations improperly addressed discovery disputes or made legal arguments that belonged in a motion for summary judgment or at trial. Some allegations also concerned matters being litigated in another case. The court therefore denied Benson’s motion for leave to amend.

Order

The court ordered that defendants’ motion for a protective order was GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. It directed that a protective order and an amended pretrial scheduling order would issue. It ordered that Benson’s motion for leave to amend the complaint was DENIED. All prior consistent orders remained in effect.

Judge

The order was signed by Tony N. Leung, United States Magistrate Judge.