Robinson v. Minnesota, State of
- David Doty
- 0:17-cv-00437
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 3
In Robinson v. Minnesota, Judge Menendez denied Robinson’s request to skip an expert report and granted a 30-day stay.
Tony Robinson received a 30-day pause in the case and additional time to provide his expert report. Dr. Dannewitz and Dr. Saini opposed the stay but were required to proceed after the 30-day pause.
What happened
In Robinson v. Minnesota, Tony Robinson asked the court to excuse him from preparing a written expert report and to pause the case while he was held in administrative detention. Dr. Dannewitz and Dr. Saini opposed both requests.
The court ruled that federal court procedures, including the federal rule requiring a written expert report, applied instead of the state-law requirement Robinson relied on. The court also found that detention made it harder for Robinson to access the resources needed to pursue his case without a lawyer, while the opposing defendants had not shown enough hardship from a short pause.
Judge Menendez denied the request to skip the expert report and granted a 30-day stay, lasting until January 11, 2020. Robinson’s expert report was due 14 days after the stay ended.
The detailed version
- Robinson v. Minnesota, State of · No. 0:17-cv-00437
- David Doty
- Dec. 12, 2019
Background
The court considered two motions filed by Tony Robinson: a motion to exclude or avoid the written expert-report requirement and a motion for a temporary stay of the case. Robinson identified Dr. Jeffery Seybold, M.D., as his expert and argued that his disclosure and affidavit should be enough. He relied on Minnesota Statute § 145.682, a state-law requirement, rather than preparing the report required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2)(B).
Robinson also requested a stay because he was incarcerated and had been in administrative detention since November 5, 2019. He first sought a 30-day stay, then requested an open-ended stay until he was transferred to another facility. Dr. Dannewitz and Dr. Saini opposed the requested stay.
Motion Concerning the Expert Report
The court denied Robinson’s motion. It explained that federal procedural rules apply in federal court, not state procedural rules. The court determined that Rule 26 requires more information in an expert report than Minnesota Statute § 145.682 requires. Therefore, even if Robinson’s affidavit satisfied the state-law requirement, it did not satisfy Rule 26.
The court also noted that the federal report requirement helps defendants prepare their defenses and their own experts for trial. The order required Robinson to serve the Rule 26(a)(2)(B) expert report 14 days after the stay was lifted.
Motion for a Temporary Stay
The court granted Robinson’s motion for a temporary stay but limited it to 30 days. A stay pauses court proceedings. The court found that Robinson had shown a need for a short stay because his administrative detention made access to the resources needed to pursue his case without a lawyer more difficult. The defendants opposing the motion had not adequately shown that a brief stay would cause them hardship.
The court denied Robinson’s request for an indefinite stay by limiting the pause to 30 days. It found that a moderate stay would give Robinson additional time without unduly delaying the case. The case was stayed until January 11, 2020. The court cautioned that it would be unlikely to grant another delay if Robinson had not been transferred after 30 days.
Disposition
Judge Katherine Menendez denied Robinson’s motion concerning the expert report and granted Robinson’s motion for a temporary stay. The expert report was due 14 days after the stay was lifted.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.