Robinson v. Minnesota, State of

Background

The court considered Tony Terrell Robinson’s motion to consider responses to the defendants’ opposition. Earlier, Robinson had asked to be exempted from providing a written expert report. The court denied that request on December 12, 2019. Robinson later filed a reply to the defendants’ opposition and moved for the court to consider it.

Analysis

The court explained that the earlier motion was a non-dispositive motion because it concerned discovery. Under the District of Minnesota’s local rules, reply memoranda supporting non-dispositive motions are not permitted unless the court gives prior permission. Robinson had not requested permission before filing his reply. The court therefore had no obligation to consider it.

The court nevertheless briefly addressed Robinson’s argument. He argued that Dr. Seybold, whom he described as an unretained treating physician, was subject to the disclosure requirement for treating physicians rather than the requirement for a written expert report. The court said this argument shifted the focus of his original motion and effectively sought an advisory opinion about which expert-disclosure rule applied. The court further stated that, regardless of which rule applied, Robinson would not be exempt from following it. The court did not disturb its earlier ruling. It also noted that the issue would be better raised as an evidentiary challenge at summary judgment or in a motion in limine.

Order and effect

The court ordered that Robinson’s motion to consider responses, docket number 212, was denied. This order addressed the filing of Robinson’s reply and did not resolve the underlying expert-disclosure issue in his favor. Judge Katherine Menendez signed the order.