Murphy v. Minnesota Department of Human Services

Background

The plaintiffs are Tenner Murphy, through his guardian Kay Murphy; Marrie Bottelson; Dionne Swanson; and others similarly situated. The defendant is Jodi Harpstead, in her capacity as Commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Human Services.

Fact discovery had closed under a scheduling order. The opinion states that the parties had stipulated to certain limited discovery after the fact-discovery deadline, but no later than June 25, 2018. The defendant later produced more than 7,000 pages of documents and disclosed ten additional witnesses on April 20, 2020. The plaintiffs filed a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37 seeking to exclude those documents and witnesses, asserting that the production was untimely and prejudicial. They also argued that the information was incomplete and that any new information should instead be considered during a separate remedies phase of trial.

Magistrate Judge Becky R. Thorson denied the request to exclude the production under Rule 37(c)(1). She allowed each side to supplement its disclosures with documents created after the discovery deadline and permitted limited additional discovery. Her order required supplemental production on January 29, 2021 and provided a process for requesting depositions or other additional discovery based on those disclosures.

Objection and Arguments

The plaintiffs objected under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A), Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a), and the local rules. Under that standard, a district judge must modify or set aside a magistrate judge’s nondispositive order if it is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. The plaintiffs argued that the Federal Rules required exclusion of the late materials unless the delay was substantially justified or harmless. They also argued that the modified approach would increase prejudice and would not guarantee adequate discovery about the new documents, policies, or witnesses.

The defendant argued that post-discovery information could be considered because the plaintiffs sought prospective injunctive relief—an order addressing ongoing or future conditions. The defendant maintained that the magistrate judge had created an appropriate procedure allowing both sides to investigate current information and present their positions.

Ruling

Judge Donovan W. Frank held that the magistrate judge’s decision not to exclude the April 20, 2020 production and to allow limited additional discovery was neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law. The court found that the production was largely responsive to the plaintiffs’ own requests for updated information and was relevant to determining an appropriate level of injunctive relief. The court also found that the limited additional discovery addressed potential prejudice.

The court overruled the plaintiffs’ objection and affirmed the magistrate judge’s August 31, 2020 order on the plaintiffs’ motion for sanctions in its entirety. The court expressly declined to address the plaintiffs’ separate request for a bifurcated trial in this order.