Laughlin v. Stuart
- Eric Tostrud
- 0:19-cv-02547
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 5
In Laughlin v. Stuart, Judge Leung denied Michael B. Hari’s motion to undo a protective order, strike the filing, and impose sanctions.
Michael B. Hari, the other plaintiffs, the defendants and their counsel, and anyone subject to the protective order’s limits on confidential discovery.
What happened
In Laughlin v. Stuart, Michael B. Hari challenged a protective order that limited the use of confidential discovery materials. He said he had not agreed to the defendants’ joint motion because his proposed language was not included.
Hari asked the court to vacate the protective order, strike the joint motion, and sanction the defendants and their lawyer. The court treated the request to vacate the order as a request for reconsideration, which requires extraordinary circumstances and a prior letter showing compelling reasons.
The court denied the motion in full, including the request for sanctions. Judge Leung said Hari had not shown grounds for reconsideration and had not shown that he served the sanctions motion 21 days before filing it, as required by the federal rules.
The detailed version
- Laughlin v. Stuart · No. 0:19-cv-02547
- Eric Tostrud
- July 13, 2020
Background
The defendants filed a joint motion for a protective order governing confidential discovery. The parties agreed to the proposed order except for language that two plaintiffs wanted allowing them to use confidential information in certain criminal proceedings. The court issued the protective order without that language.
Michael B. Hari later said he had not consented to the joint motion and moved to vacate the protective order, strike the motion, and impose sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11. Hari was proceeding without a lawyer. The defendants opposed the motion.
Court’s analysis
Hari did not identify the legal authority supporting his request. The court construed the request to vacate the protective order as a motion for reconsideration under District of Minnesota Local Rule 7.1(j). That rule requires a party to file a letter showing compelling circumstances before filing a reconsideration motion. Hari had not done so.
The court nevertheless considered the request and denied reconsideration. It explained that reconsideration is limited to correcting a clear legal or factual error or considering newly discovered evidence, and that relief is available only in extraordinary circumstances. The court found no compelling reason to change the protective order. It concluded that the defendants had fairly presented the record and that the court had discretion to issue the order.
The court also rejected Hari’s request for permission to use confidential documents from this lawsuit in any way he wished in another proceeding. It stated that use of confidential discovery in the case was governed by the protective order and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and did not authorize unrestricted use in criminal proceedings.
The court denied Rule 11 sanctions because Hari had not established that he served the sanctions motion on the relevant person 21 days before filing it. That advance service is required to give the recipient an opportunity to correct or withdraw the challenged filing.
Disposition
Judge Tony N. Leung ordered that Michael B. Hari’s verified motion to vacate the order, strike the motion, and seek sanctions was DENIED. The court also stated that prior consistent orders remained in effect.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.