Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe v. County of Mille Lacs, Minnesota

Background

The case concerns the boundaries of the Mille Lacs Indian Reservation and the law-enforcement authority of the Mille Lacs Band within those boundaries. This order did not decide those underlying issues. Instead, it reviewed a scheduling decision about when certain defendants could file motions seeking to resolve claims before trial.

The scheduling order set September 30, 2019 as the deadline for completing fact discovery and required the parties to contact Judge Nelson’s chambers by May 1, 2020 to schedule a hearing on dispositive motions. “Dispositive motions” are motions that could resolve claims or defenses without a trial.

Defendants Joseph Walsh, the Mille Lacs County Attorney, and Don Lorge, the Mille Lacs County Sheriff, asked Magistrate Judge Leo I. Brisbois for permission to file dispositive motions before fact discovery closed. They proposed motions based on several forms of immunity, including prosecutorial, Eleventh Amendment, and qualified immunity; lack of subject-matter jurisdiction; Younger abstention; and the argument that official-capacity claims against them were legally redundant because claims against Mille Lacs County would also bind them.

The plaintiffs opposed early motion practice. They argued that some of the proposed issues overlapped with their anticipated motions concerning the defendants’ affirmative defenses and that ongoing discovery concerned facts relevant to the proposed defenses. They also argued that the short schedule and other litigation demands would make it difficult to prepare and respond to early motions.

Magistrate Judge’s Order and Objection

Magistrate Judge Brisbois denied the request without prejudice and directed the parties to continue fact discovery. He concluded that little efficiency would result from allowing early motions given the limited time remaining before the discovery deadline. He also noted that completing fact discovery could reduce the likelihood that the plaintiffs would seek additional time under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(d) to obtain facts needed to respond to summary-judgment motions.

The magistrate judge said that after fact discovery ended, either side could seek permission for early dispositive motion practice before the scheduled May 1, 2020 date. He directed the parties to meet and confer and seek such relief by October 25, 2019.

Walsh and Lorge objected, arguing that the magistrate judge’s decision was clearly erroneous and contrary to law. They emphasized that immunity is intended to protect officials from litigation itself, not only from later damages, and argued that immunity, abstention, and subject-matter jurisdiction should be resolved promptly.

District Court’s Analysis

The district court explained that its review of a magistrate judge’s order on a nondispositive matter—an order that does not finally resolve the case or a claim—is highly deferential. It could reverse only if the order was clearly erroneous or contrary to law.

Judge Nelson agreed with Magistrate Judge Brisbois that completing fact discovery could reduce the need for requests for more time or delayed rulings under Rule 56(d). The court found that discovery concerning the defendants’ actions and the Band’s law-enforcement authority was still underway. It also found that remaining discovery appeared relevant to the claimed immunities, Younger abstention, and the alleged redundancy of the claims.

The court further noted that the defendants still had outstanding discovery requests and had informed the plaintiffs that some document production would not be completed until after the original discovery deadline. The parties had agreed to seek an extension of fact discovery until February 28, 2020. In the court’s view, the need for additional discovery undermined the argument that early motion practice would promote efficiency.

The court rejected the defendants’ cited cases as inapplicable because those cases involved appeals from immunity rulings or refusals to decide immunity issues until trial. This case involved only a refusal to change the scheduling order to permit early motions before fact discovery closed. The court emphasized that the defendants could still file summary-judgment motions before trial.

The court also observed that Walsh and Lorge had not initially sought dismissal on immunity grounds and had participated in scheduling and discovery. In addition, because they did not seek dismissal of the claims against Mille Lacs County, dismissing them on immunity grounds would not necessarily eliminate their involvement in discovery.

The court did not decide the merits of the defendants’ immunity defenses. It stated that the magistrate judge had not considered those arguments and that they were therefore not properly before the district court in this objection.

Disposition

The court held that Magistrate Judge Brisbois’s July 19, 2019 order was neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law. It overruled Defendants Walsh and Lorge’s objection and affirmed the magistrate judge’s July 19, 2019 order. The order left open the possibility of later summary-judgment motions and did not decide the underlying reservation-boundary or law-enforcement questions.