Fredin v. Middlecamp

Background

The court considered Brock Fredin’s letter request in three related cases. In a November 23, 2020 order, the court sanctioned Fredin under its inherent authority to address abuses of the judicial process. The sanction included an injunction requiring him to remove websites and videos that the court found were created in bad faith to harass and intimidate the defendants, their counsel, and a magistrate judge. The order warned that failing to comply could lead to additional penalties.

Fredin then asked for permission to file a motion for reconsideration and asked the court to stay, or temporarily pause, the injunction while he pursued an appeal. The opinion states that Fredin declared he would not follow the earlier order and that he posted additional material disparaging Jamie Kreil’s attorneys’ firm and the district judge while the request was pending.

Request to Reconsider

Under the District of Minnesota’s local rules, a party must obtain the court’s permission before filing a reconsideration motion and must show compelling circumstances. Reconsideration is a limited procedure used to correct a serious legal or factual mistake or to consider newly discovered evidence; it cannot be used simply to repeat arguments already presented or introduce evidence that could have been submitted earlier.

The court rejected Fredin’s First Amendment argument because it had already considered and rejected that argument in the November 23 sanctions order. The court had held that the First Amendment did not protect publishing baseless and inflammatory attacks on opposing counsel or judicial officers as part of an effort to harass them into favorable settlement terms or judicial decisions. The court also found that Fredin’s declaration about his purpose in creating the websites and videos could have been submitted earlier. His claim that the defendants had been allowed to harass him online likewise did not establish compelling circumstances.

Request to Stay the Injunction

The court explained that a stay pending appeal is an extraordinary remedy. It considered whether Fredin was likely to succeed, whether he would suffer irreparable harm without a stay, whether a stay would substantially harm other interested parties, and where the public interest lay.

The court stated that the November 23 order imposed a sanction for abuse of the judicial process rather than a preliminary injunction. It found that pausing the sanction would substantially harm the defendants, the court, and the judicial process and would conflict with the public interest. The court also concluded that Fredin had not shown a strong likelihood of success on appeal or irreparable harm. His continued refusal to comply and additional disparaging postings further supported denying a stay.

Disposition

Judge Susan Richard Nelson denied Fredin’s Letter Request for Permission to File Motion to Reconsider and to Stay Injunction. The opinion does not state that the request was denied with or without prejudice.